In a significant clarification on parental rights and identity documentation, the Delhi High Court has held that the name of a father need not be included in a minor’s passport when custody and guardianship have been exclusively and irrevocably vested in the mother under a court-approved settlement. The judgment affirms that administrative compliance must align with substantive legal realities, not mere formalities.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The petitioners, Ms. Parul Daware and her minor daughter, petitioner no. 2 (Inara), sought directions to the Regional Passport Officer to reissue the minor’s passport without the name of her father, Mr. Gaurav Sethi. The petition arose after the passport authority issued a passport on 16.07.2024 containing the father’s name, despite explicit prior representations by the petitioners that the father had no legal or factual role in the child’s life.
Key Facts
- The minor child, Inara, was born on or about 07.04.2020, making her approximately four months old at the time of the settlement.
- On 07.04.2021, the parents entered into a Conciliated Agreement, approved by the Family Court, which granted sole and permanent custody and guardianship of the minor to the mother, petitioner no. 1.
- Clause 4 of the Agreement explicitly states: "The Second Party [father] agrees... that the permanent custody and single guardianship will remain with the First Party [mother]. The Second Party and his family members will never claim the custody and rights of visitation over the minor child daughter."
- The Family Court ratified the agreement and granted divorce vide order dated 16.07.2022.
- Since the date of the agreement, the father has had no contact with the child, has not provided maintenance or alimony, and has not exercised any visitation rights.
- The child has been raised exclusively by the mother and uses the maternal surname.
- The passport application was submitted in 2024, and the passport issued on 16.07.2024 erroneously included the father’s name.
Procedural History
- 07.04.2021: Conciliated Agreement executed between parents.
- 16.07.2022: Family Court granted divorce and formally approved the custody arrangement.
- 2024: Petitioners applied for passport for minor daughter.
- 16.07.2024: Passport issued containing father’s name despite petitioners’ objections.
- 2025: Writ Petition (W.P.(C) 17155/2025) filed before Delhi High Court.
- 07.04.2026: Judgment delivered by Justice Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav.
The Parties' Positions
Petitioners: Argued that the father has permanently and voluntarily relinquished all rights under a court-approved agreement. Including his name in the passport is unnecessary, potentially harmful, and contrary to the child’s best interests. Relied on precedents where courts have permitted deletion of father’s name under similar circumstances.
Respondents: Did not contest the factual matrix but maintained that passport rules require inclusion of both parents’ names unless a court order explicitly directs otherwise. Argued that absence of a court order specifically mandating deletion renders the request non-compliant with procedural norms.
Relief Sought
The petitioners sought: (1) direction to the passport authority to reissue the minor’s passport without the name of Mr. Gaurav Sethi; (2) deletion of the father’s name from all official records pertaining to the passport; and (3) costs.
The Legal Issue
The central question was whether the name of a biological father must be mandatorily included in a minor’s passport when a court-approved agreement has conferred sole and permanent custody and guardianship upon the mother, and the father has completely abandoned all parental rights, including visitation and maintenance.
Arguments Presented
For the Petitioner
Counsel relied on two key precedents: Shalu Nigam and Anr. v. Regional Passport Officer and Smita Maan and Anr. v. Regional Passport Officer. In both cases, the Delhi High Court held that when a father has completely deserted the child, relinquished all rights, and the child is raised solely by the mother under a court-approved settlement, the passport authority may omit the father’s name. The court emphasized that the welfare of the child overrides rigid procedural norms. The petitioners argued that the facts of their case were indistinguishable from those precedents.
For the Respondent
The Respondent’s counsel contended that Rule 4.5.1 of Chapter 8 and Rule 4.1 of Chapter 9 of the Passport Rules, 1980, require the names of both parents unless a court order specifically directs otherwise. They argued that the absence of a court order explicitly ordering deletion of the father’s name rendered the petitioners’ request non-compliant with statutory norms.
The Court's Analysis
The Court examined the nature of the Conciliated Agreement and its judicial ratification. It noted that the agreement was not a private arrangement but one approved by the Family Court, thereby acquiring legal sanctity. The Court emphasized that the father’s complete and voluntary relinquishment of custody, visitation, and financial obligations amounted to a de facto termination of parental relationship.
"In the unique and peculiar circumstances of this case, it is accordingly directed that the name of the father of Petitioner No. 2 be deleted from the passport and the passport be re-issued in favour of the minor child without the name of the father. Needless to add that this order shall not be treated as a precedent."
The Court held that the Passport Rules are not inflexible mandates but must be interpreted in light of the child’s best interests, as mandated by Article 21 of the Constitution and the Convention on the Rights of the Child. The Court distinguished between biological parenthood and functional parenthood, observing that the latter governs practical and administrative realities.
The Court further noted that the father’s silence, non-participation, and abandonment over four years reinforced the conclusion that his inclusion in the passport serves no legitimate purpose and may cause emotional or social harm to the child.
The Verdict
The petition succeeded. The Court directed the Regional Passport Officer to reissue the passport of minor petitioner no. 2, Inara, without the name of Mr. Gaurav Sethi. The passport shall be reissued within four weeks from the date of this order. The Court also directed that the passport authority shall not impose any additional fees or conditions for reissuance. Costs of Rs. 10,000 were awarded to the petitioners.
What This Means For Similar Cases
Custody Agreements Override Procedural Formalities
- Practitioners may now confidently argue that a court-approved custody agreement granting sole guardianship to one parent suffices to justify omission of the other parent’s name from a minor’s passport.
- The burden shifts to the passport authority to demonstrate a compelling reason to retain the name, not to the parent to prove exceptional circumstances.
Welfare of the Child Is Paramount
- Administrative rules must yield to the child’s best interests under Article 21 and the Juvenile Justice Act.
- Evidence of abandonment, non-payment of maintenance, and lack of visitation strengthens the case for deletion.
- Use of maternal surname and exclusive upbringing by the mother are corroborative factors.
Precedent Is Not Required, But Consistency Is
- While the Court explicitly stated this order is not a precedent, the reasoning aligns with prior Delhi HC rulings and establishes a clear doctrinal trend.
- Practitioners should cite Shalu Nigam and Smita Maan as persuasive authority in similar matters across India.
