Single Parent Affidavit Enough for Minor’s Passport: Raj HC

Single Parent’s Affidavit Suffices: Rajasthan High Court Orders Passport for Minor Abandoned by Father

Published: 18 October 2026 · NyayVidhan

The Rajasthan High Court directed the authorities to issue a passport forthwith to an 11-year-old boy abandoned by his father. Under Clauses 4.4 and 4.5 of the passport Compendium, a single parent need only file an Annexure ‘C’ affidavit, which his mother had done (para 15). The authorities could not insist on an Indian court's declaration on the parents' consent divorce in California, where the family had lived (paras 11-12, 18).

Key holdings

A consent divorce decree of a California court, where the parents and child then lived, was found free of fault (paras 7-8).

As the Court read it, Clause 3.3 targets foreign decrees where neither the marriage nor the parties’ last residence was in that country (paras 10-11).

A single parent’s Annexure ‘C’ affidavit is what Clauses 4.4 and 4.5 require for a minor’s passport (para 15).

The delay was attributable entirely to the authorities; without a passport the child risked his education in America and naturalisation (para 18).

Any deficiency is to be completed within a time period after issue, failing which the authority may seek cancellation (para 20).

Case explainer by NyayVidhan: an account of this judgment and the law it laid down, not the court's text. The judgment itself is the authoritative version.

Brief Facts

The petitioner, anonymised here as ‘N’, is a minor living with his maternal grandparents while his mother works in America; his father's whereabouts have been unknown since June 2018 (para 5). His parents married in India and moved to the USA, where a California court dissolved the marriage by a consent order of 26.08.2014 giving the mother sole legal custody (paras 2, 6). A passport issued to him in 2017 expired on 17.09.2022 (para 2). The mother's renewal application of 08.07.2023 was objected to because both parents' declaration under Annexure ‘D’ was missing, and renewal was refused even after she produced the divorce order (para 2).

Court's Findings

Justice Arun Monga held that both parents had consciously accepted the California court's jurisdiction, which it had because they and the child lived there, and found no fault in its decree (paras 7-8). The authorities relied on Clause 3.3 of the Compendium of passport instructions dated 31.05.2022, which requires an Indian court's declaration before a foreign divorce is accepted (para 10). That clause, the Court explained, follows Y. Narasimha Rao and covers foreign decrees where neither the marriage was solemnised nor the parties last resided together in that country (para 11). Demanding fresh proceedings nine years later, when a passport had been issued in 2017 after the divorce, ran contrary to its letter and spirit (para 12), and the mother could not compel an ex-husband of unknown whereabouts to appear in a Family Court (para 13). Under Chapter 4 on minors (para 14), Clauses 4.4 and 4.5 require a single parent only to file an Annexure ‘C’ affidavit, which the mother had concededly done (para 15). The authorities also ignored the father's 2014 no-objection to the mother taking the child to India (para 16); he had not objected but abandoned the child (para 17).

Legal Principle

A single parent applying for a minor's passport meets Clauses 4.4 and 4.5 of the passport Compendium by filing an Annexure ‘C’ affidavit. The demand for an Indian court's declaration on a foreign divorce decree does not apply where the parents lived together in that country and submitted to its court's jurisdiction (paras 11-12, 15).

Precedents Relied Upon

Y. Narasimha Rao and Ors. v. Y. Venkata Lakshmi and Anr. Supreme Court, judgment dated 9/7/1991
Distinguished Discussed at ¶ 10, 11, 12
Clause 3.3 of the passport Compendium, requiring an Indian declaratory order on a foreign divorce decree, was framed on this judgment and covers decrees where neither the marriage was solemnised nor the parties last resided together in the foreign country; it did not apply where the parents had lived in California with the child and submitted to that court.