Karnataka High Court
WP/39524/2025 of MRS. SONIYA D ALIAS SONIYA RAKESH Vs UNION OF INDIA on 21 September 2026
CNR: KAHC010842952025 NC: 2026:KHC:51670 WP No. 39524 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 21ST DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C.M. POONACHA WRIT PETITION NO. 39524 OF 2025 (GM-PASS) BETWEEN: 1. MRS. SONIYA D ALIAS SONIYA RAKESH AGED ABOUT
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 21ST DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C.M. POONACHA
WRIT PETITION NO. 39524 OF 2025 (GM-PASS)
BETWEEN:
1.
MRS. SONIYA D ALIAS SONIYA RAKESH
AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS
R/A 1570 W MAGGIO WAY,
APT 2007, CHANDLER, AZ,
USA - 85224
ALSO AT NO. 19, DHARGA ROAD,
MANI LAYOUT, BIDARAHALLI,
BANGALORE SOUTH,
BANGALORE - 560049
2.
MASTER AYUSH LAKSHAN RAKESH
AGED ABOUT 10 YEARS
R/A 1570 W MAGGIO WAY,
APT 2007, CHANDLER, AZ, USA - 85224
REPRESENTED BY THE MOTHER -
PETITIONER NO.1
…PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. SONIA RAJESH.,ADVOCATE)
AND:
1.
UNION OF INDIA
MINISTRY OF EXTERNAL AFFAIRS,
74B, SOUTH BLOCK
NEW DELHI - 110 001
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY
HC-KAR
2.
REGIONAL PASSPORT OFFICER,
BENGALURU MINISTRY OF EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
GOVERNMENT OF INDIA
8TH BLOCK, 80 FEET ROAD,
KORAMANGALA, BENGALURU - 560 095
3.
RAKESH K
S/O KUPPASWAMY
R/O NO.9 & 10, GROUND FLOOR,
1ST STREET, LKB NAGAR
THIRUVERKADU,
AUAPAKKAM, CHENNAI 600077
EMAIL: ITSCAREROCKEY@GMAIL.COM
…RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. SWAMINI GANESH MOHANAMBAL., CGC FOR R1 & R2)
THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DIRECT THE R2 TO
RENEW THE PASSPORT OF AYUSH LAKSHAN RAKESH BEARING
PASSPORT NO. U8987501 AND FILE NO. MA1063180788320
WITHOUT SEEKING FOR SIGNATURE OF THE FATHER.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING
IN 'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS
UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C.M. POONACHA
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
ORAL ORDER
1. The present writ petition is filed seeking for the following reliefs. "a) Issue a Writ of Mandamus directing the respondent No.2 to renew the Passport of Ayush Lakshan Rakesh bearing Passport No.&8987501 and file No.MA1063180788320, without seeking for signature of the father.
HC-KAR
b) Any other order or remedy which may be deemed fit in the interest of justice and equity."
2. An application dated 18.12.2025 (Annexure - N to the writ petition) was made for issuance of passport of petitioner No.2. Considering the same, a short validity passport has been issued on 28.01.2026 which passport is valid upto 27.01.2027. Subsequently, an application dated 11.09.2026 has been made for re-issuance of the passport of petitioner No.2. Pursuant to the said application, the petitioners have been notified to appear before the respondent No.2 - Regional passport officer on 25.09.2026.
3. It is the contention of the petitioners that the father of petitioner No.2 (Sri Rajesh) has not consented to sign the application for re-issuance of passport of petitioner No.2.
4. In this context, it is contented that the marriage between petitioner No.1 and the said Rajesh was dissolved by a decree of divorce dated 25.07.2023 granted in H.M.O.P. No.1007 of 2021 by the Court of the Subordinate Judge at Poonamallee, Tamil Nadu. A perusal of the said Order dated 25.07.2023
HC-KAR
(Annexure-L to the Writ Petition) would indicate that the petition filed by the said Sri Rajesh under Section 13(1) (i-a) (i-
b) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 has been allowed and the decree of divorce has been granted. It is pertinent to notice that petitioner No.1 did not appear in the said proceedings in H.M.O.P. No.1007 of 2021. It is further pertinent to note that in the said proceedings i.e. H.M.O.P. No.1007 of 2021, there is no adjudication as to the guardianship or custody of petitioner No.2.
5. In view of the aforementioned, the contention of the petitioner that the application of petitioner No.2 for re-issuance of passport ought to be considered without the signature of father of petitioner no. 2 is untenable.
6. The present petition is disposed of reserving liberty to the petitioners to comply with the stipulations mandated by the respondent No.2-Regional Passport Officer for issuance of passport or in the alternative to initiate appropriate proceedings in accordance with law to enable petitioner No.1 to act on behalf of petitioner No.2 to the exclusion of the father of petitioner No.2.
HC-KAR
7. All rights and contentions of the parties in that regard are kept open to be adjudicated in an appropriate proceedings.
(C.M. POONACHA) JUDGE
BS List No.: 1 Sl No.: 67