WP/31630/2025 of Master Syed Mesum Hussain Vs Union of India on 23 June 2026

1. Union of lndia, Rep by its Secretary, Ministry of External Affairs, New Delhi

2. The Consulate General of the Federal Republic of Germany, 9 Boat Club Road, Raja Annamalai Puram, Chennai 600028 and also P.O.Box 3110, Chennai 600 028, lndia, Phone 91-44-2430-1600, Fax 91-44-2434-9293' Email info@chennai.diPlo.de CT of R2 is amended as per C.O.d1.29.12.2025 in lA No.2/2025.

3. Syed Mussadiq Hussain, S/o. Syed Muftaqi Hussain, aged about 46 years, O-cc Private Employee, FUo. H.No.17-4-387, Dabeerpura, Hyderabad. ,..RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High court may be pleased to issue a writ, order or direction, more particularly one in the nature of writ of Mandamus, declaring the action of the 2nd respondent in insisting for fumishing of NOC (No dbi""tion [ertificate) from the 3rd respondent for obtaining VISA to travel Germiny to pursue the petitioners education during his minority while staying with his mother in Germany is illegal, arbitrary and violation of Articles 21, 19 and 14 o1 constitution of lndia and ilso violative of principles of natural justice and I

:-"-l!:Et' consequently direct the 2nd respondent to consider the application of the petitioner without insisting for NOC (No Objection Certificate) from the 3rd respondent. l.A. NO: 1OF 2025 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to direct the 2nd respondent to consider the application of the petitioner and process the petitioners Visa, without insisting for NOC (No Objection Certificate) from the 3rd respondent, pending disposal of writ petition Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI KALUVALA VENKATA VARA PRASAD Counsel for the Respondents: SRI N. BHUJANGA R,AO, DEPUTY SOLICITOR GENERAL OF INDIA Counsel for the Respondent 3: Mr J PRABHAKAT REPRESENTING Mr AZIZ HUSSAIN The Court made the following: ORDER

(.^\) IN ITIGII FORTHE S oF'

NBlC J ANA

n TICE WRIT PETITION No.31630

Between: Master Syed Mesum Hussain .. . Petitioner AND Union of India, and others The petitioner, Master Syed Mesum Hussain, is the son of Mrs' Sara Syeda and tlle 3'd respondent, Syed Mussadiq Hussain, bom out of their wedlock. The present writ petition has been filed on behalf of the petitioner through his grandfather, Mr. Syed MohammedAskari, acting as his General Power of Attomey holder.

1.1. According to the averments made in the writ affrdavit, the a marriage of Mrs. Sara Syeda with the 3d respondent was solemnized on 03.06.2010 in accordance with Islamic rites and customs. Out of the said wedlock, the petitioner, Master Syed Mesum Hussain, was born on 16.07 .2O1l.It is alleged that the 3d respondent failed to take proper care of Mrs. Sara Syeda and their son and neglected his familial responsibilities, wp-31630_202s NBI(, J resulting in disputes between the spouses. Subsequently, the 3'd respoqdent pronounced "Talaq," leading to their separation. Thereafter, Mr. Syed Mohammed Askari, the father of Mrs. Sara Syeda, has been taking care of both Mrs. Sara Syeda and the petitioner.

1.2. It is stated that the 3'd respondent instituted proceedings under the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890, in G.W.O.P. No. 7l I of 2011 before the Family Court, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, when the petitioner was about one and a halfyears old. During the pendency ofthe said proceedings, Mrs. Sara Syeda filed M.C. No. 146 of 2013 seeking maintenance against the 3d respondent before the Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge-cum- Additional Family Court-cum-XXIII Additional Chief Judge, Hyderabad. The said maintenance case was allowed, and maintenance was award0d at the rate of Rs.5,000/- per month to Mrs. Sara Syeda and Rs.2,500/- per month to the petitioner.

1.3. It is further stated that Mrs. Sara Syeda remarried a German citizen in August 2024 in accordance with Muslim Personal Law and has continued to look after the educational and welfare needs of the petitioner. She now intends to take the petitioner to Germany for his education. It is stated that educational institutions in Germany require the child to be present at least three months prior to admission. Accordingly, the petitioner applied to the 2nd respondent{onsulate of Germany for issuance of visa.

1.4. The grievance of the petitioner is that the 2nd respondent has insisted upon production of a No Objection Certificate (NOC) from the 3d respondent. Hence, the present writ petition.

2. Heard Mr. Kaluvala Venkata Vara Prasad, leamed counsel for the petitioner; Mr. N. Bhujanga Rao, leamed Deputy Solicitor General of India wP_31530_2025 NBK, J appearing for respondent Nos. I and 2; and Mr. J. Prabhakar, learned Senior Counsel representing Mr. Aziz Hussain, leamed counsel on record for respondent No. 3. Perused the record.

3. Leamed counsel for the petitioner contended that matrimonial disputes arose between Mrs. Sara Syeda and the 3rd respondent, culminating in the latter pronouncing *Talad' and abandoning Mrs. Sara Syeda and the petitioner. Consequently, Mrs. Sara Syeda was constrained to institute M'C. No. 146 of 2013 seeking maintenance, wherein the trial Court awarded maintenance in favour of both Mrs. Sara Syeda and the petitioner. Leamed counsel submitted that the 3'd respondent pronounced *Talaq" more than a a decdde ago and has failed to care for or maintain the petitioner during all these years. It was contended that Mrs. Sara Syeda has single-handedly discharged all parental responsibilities and ensured the welfare and upbringing of the child. Leamed counsel further submitted that Mrs. Sara Syeda subsequently remarried a German citizen in August 2024 in accordance with Muslim Personal Law and now intends to take the petitioner to Germany for his education. Accordingly, an application for a visa was submitted before the German Consulate. Learned counsel argued that, in the facts and circumstances of the case, the insistence on a No Objection Certificate (NOC) from the 3d respondent for processing the petitioner's visa application is wholly unwarranted and liable to be disptnsed with. He therefore prayed for a direction to respondent No' 2 not to insist upon an NOC from the 3d respondent while considering the petitioner's visa application.

4. Leamed Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the 3d relying upon the counter affrdavit, contended that the 3d respondent is the natural father and legal guardian ofthe petitioner and that the petitioner's - wp_31630-2025 NBK, J mother had no authority to confer guardianship or execute a General Power of Auorney in favour of any third party. It was further contended'that relocating the petitioner to Germany at the age of 15 years would not be in his best interests. Leamed Senior Counsel submitted that language and cultural ba:riers may adversely affect the petitioner's education and integration into society. He further contended that, although matrimonial disputes had arisen and divorce proceedings had taken place, visitation rights had been granted in favour of the 3'd respondent by the competent Court. It was argued that there are inconsistencies in the stand taken by the petitioner's mother and the GPA holder regarding the divorce. It was also contended that the petitioner's mother had obtained the petitioner's Transfer Certificate from his school on 02.04.2024, wherein the name of the father was left blank, and that during the academic year 20234024,thepetitioner remained absent from school for 51 days. Learned Senior Counsel further submitted that the petitioner's mother could have awaited the outcome of the visa application before relocating to Germany. He also pointed out that she had contracted a second marriage with a German citizen. Finally, it was contended that the petitioner ought to have approached the competent Family Court for appropriate relief and that this Court lacks jurisdiction to entertain the present writ petition.

5. Learned Deputy Solicitor General of India submitted that the 3rd respondent divorced Mrs. Sara Syeda, as evidenced by the Divorce Certificate dated 04.09.2018 issued by the Telangana State Waqf Boar*'H' further submitted that the 3rd respondent had filed G.W.O.P. No. 7ll of 2012 before the Family Court at Hyderabad seeking a declaration that he be recognized as the lawful permanent guardian of the petitioner and also seeking custody of the child. It was submitted that, by order dated

NSK, J 28.02.2014, the Family Court partly allowed the petition by granting visitation rights to the 3'd respondent, permitting him to meet the petitioner on every third Saturday of the month at the offrce of the District Legal Services Authority. The prayer seeking custody of the child, however, was rejected. Learned Deputy Solicitor General further submitted that the Family Court's order granting visitation rights until the child attains majority cannot operate as an impediment to the petitioner's educational pursuits. He argued that the apprehensions expressed by the 3d respondent regarding the petitioner's relocation to Germany, including concems relating to language and education, are speculative and unsupported by any material on record andiherefore do not merit consideration.

6. Having considered the rival submissions, this Court finds that it is undisputed that matrimonial disputes arose between Mrs. Sara Syeda and the 3'd respondent, culminating in their divorce, as evidenced by the Divorce Certiflrcate dated 04.09.2018 issued by the Telangana State Waqf Board. It is also a matter of record that the 3d respondent instituted G.W.O.P. No' 7ll of20ll seeking custody ofthe petitioner and a declaration ofpermanent guardianship. The said proceedings were partly allowed only to the extent of granting visitation rights, permitting the 3'd respondent to meet the petitioner once every month, namely on every third Saturday, at the offtce of t[e District Legal Services Authority. The prayer for custody of the child was expressly rejected. Consequently, the custody of the petitioner has continuously remained with his mother, Mrs. Sara Syeda.

7. It is further bome out from the record that, in M.C. No. 146 of 2013, the Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge-cum-Additional Family Court- cum-XXI[ Additional Chief Judge, Hyderabad, awarded monthly rl

NBK, J maintenance in favour of both the petitioner and his mother. These facts are not in dispute. .

8. At this juncture, it is pertinent to note that the petitioner was born on 16.07.2011 and is presently about 14 years of age- The order passed in G.W.O.P. No. 71 I of 2012 on28.02.2014 was rendered nearly twelve years ago. The visitation rights granted to the 3'd respondent cannot be invoked in a manner detrimental to the educational future prospects of the child. Although the Family Court directed that the visitation arrangement would continue until the child affains majority, the 3'd respondent has had the benefit of the said arrangement since 2014, when the petitioner was approximately two years old. g. The petitioner's mother now intends to take him to Germany for the purpose of pursuing his education for his bright future. The contentiJn of the 3'd respondent that English is not widely spoken or taught in Germany and that the petitioner may face difficulties in adapting to a diflerent educational system is based on mere conjecture and cannot constitute a valid ground to impede the petitioner's educational advancement.

10. In the above circumstances, this Court is of the considered opinion that the divorce between Mrs. Sara Syeda and the 3'd respondent, evidenced by the Divorce Certificate dated 04.09.2018, has attained finality. Further, the order dated 28.02.2014 passed by the Family Court effectively recognized the continued custody of the petitioner with his mother by declining the prayer of the 3'd respondent for custody, while grantingrhim limited visitation rights.

11. The petitioner, who is presently about 14 years of age, seeks to pursue his education in Germany while residing with his mother. The educational i a''

I \ wp_31630_2025 NEIC J aspirations ofthe petitioner cannot bejeopardized, and therefore this Court is ofthe considered opinion that this is a fit case to exercise the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to direct the lst respondent-Ministry of External Affairs to correspond with the 2'd respondent-Consulate of Germany for consideration of the petitioner's Visa application, without insisting on NOC from the 3'd respondent.

12. this Court directs the lst respondent-Ministry of Extemal Affairs to forthwith communicate to the 2nd respondent{onsulate General of the Federal Republic of Germany a certified copy of this Order, together with such appropriate communication as may be necessary, for its consideration while processing the Visa application of the petitioner's minor son, without being constrained by the requirement of a No Objection Certificate from the 3d respondent, in view ofthe findings recorded herein.

13. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed, as above. There shall be no order as to costs. Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed. SD/.V.KAVITHA DEPUTY REG //TRUE COPY// ECTION OFFICER

1. The Secretary, Ministry of Extemal Affairs, Union , New Delhi

2. The Consulate GeneraI of the Federal RePublic Germany, I Boat Club Road, Raja Annamalai Puram, Chennai 600028 and also P.O.Box 3'110, Chennai 600 028, lndia' Phone 91-44-2430-1600, Fax 91-44-2434-9293, Email info@chennai.diPlo.de

e. rr,r"rGi svEJ M".rr'Hu"Ein, s/o. smt. sara Syeda and Syed Mussadiq Hussain, Aged about it};* (Minor), -Occ Student' Legal Custodian (Smt.Sara Syeda) Rep. oy tfi" e eli Holder Sri .Syed Mohammed Askari' F/o b;i. a;t; sveoa, agei "6o,iis v""o, occ Retired Emplovee' R/o' H'No'17- 5-403, DabeerPura, HYderabad'

4. O;; CC t" aaimlunninvEtlrnra vnnn PRASAD', Advocate toPu-cl ..

5. OneCCtoSRlf.f.BHUJANGARAO,DeputySolicitorGeneraloflndia loPUcl

6. Two CD Copies To, BN .TKS

HIGH COURT DATED: 2310612026 CC TOD € STAT€'

q oo 01JUL2Uz$

ORDER

b a .+ .c, * WP.No.31630 of 2025 ALLOWING THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS , o)