&w=3840&q=100)
Wife does not need husband's nod to get a passport, rules Madras HC
Madras High Court slams passport office for demanding husband's signature, says such practices reflect outdated patriarchal attitudes and violate a married woman's individual rights
New Delhi
The Madras High Court has ruled that a married woman does not require her husband's consent or signature to apply for a passport. The ruling came in response to a writ petition filed by a woman whose application was held up by the passport office due to the absence of her husband's signature on Form J — even though the couple is undergoing divorce proceedings, Bar and Bench reported.
What led to the legal dispute?
According to the court order, the woman and her husband were married in 2023 in accordance with Hindu customs. They had a daughter in 2024. However, the marriage soon turned sour, leading the husband to file for divorce in early 2025. The petition seeking dissolution of marriage is currently pending before the Sub Court.
While the divorce case was still ongoing, the wife applied for a passport. The application was rejected by the passport office, which insisted she obtain her husband's signature in Form J — a requirement she found unreasonable, given the marital discord.
When she explained her situation, officials reiterated that the only path forward was obtaining the husband's signature. Left with no other recourse, she moved the High Court, filing a writ petition against the Ministry of External Affairs, the passport office, and the Chennai Police, the news report said.
What did the court observe?
The Madras High Court took a firm stand on the issue. It expressed shock at the passport office's insistence, stating that the demand for a husband's permission reflects a deep-rooted patriarchal mindset.
'The insistence on part of the second respondent [passport office] shows the mindset of the society treating married women as if they are chattel belonging to the husband,' the court said.
The government advocate representing the Chennai Police also confirmed that no criminal cases were pending against the woman.
After examining the facts, the court said, 'In the considered view of this Court, the application submitted by the petitioner seeking for passport has to be processed independently. It is not necessary for a wife to get the permission of her husband and take his signature before applying for a passport before authority.'
The court also noted the impracticality of expecting a woman embroiled in a legal separation to seek the husband's cooperation: 'Already the relationship between the petitioner (wife) and her husband is in doldrums and the second respondent [passport office] is expecting the petitioner to get the signature of the husband. Virtually, the second respondent is insisting the petitioner to fulfill an impossibility.'
What the order say about women's rights?
Reinforcing the autonomy of married women, the court stressed that a woman retains her individuality after marriage. 'The petitioner [wife] after marrying does not lose her individuality and a wife can always apply for a passport without the permission or signature of the husband in any form.'
It further said, 'The practice of insisting for permission from the husband to apply for a passport, does not augur well for a society which is moving towards woman's emancipation. This practice is nothing short of male supremacism.'
What was the final order?
Concluding its order, the Madras High Court directed the passport office to process the woman's application without requiring her husband's signature. 'There shall be a direction to the 2nd respondent [passport office] to process the application submitted by the petitioner [wife] and issue a passport in the name of the petitioner on the petitioner satisfying the other requirements. This process shall be completed by the 2nd respondent within a period four weeks from the date of receipt of copy of the order.'
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
India Today
2 hours ago
- India Today
Banned outfit hit list had 977 names, including ex-Kerala judge: NIA tells court
The National Investigation Agency (NIA) has told a special court in Kerala's Kochi that they recovered multiple 'hit lists' maintained by the now-banned Popular Front of India (PFI) containing the names of about 977 individuals, including a former District to the NIA's submission, PFI had a dedicated 'Reporters Wing', a quasi-intelligence unit tasked with collecting private and personal information about individuals from other communities, particularly the Hindu community. This included details like name, age, photos, positions held, and even their day-to-day NIA said the data was compiled at the district level and passed to PFI's state hierarchy, regularly updated, and used to target individuals 'as and when required by the terrorist gang.' The agency also claimed that PFI operated three covert wings, the Reporters Wing, the Physical and Arms Training Wing (PE), and the Service Wing, also known as 'Hit Teams'. Documents also revealed that the Periyar Valley Campus, which has been attached by the NIA, functioned as an alleged arms training centre for the banned agency revealed this while opposing the bail pleas of Muhammad Bilal and Riyasudheen, two accused in the 2022 murder case of RSS leader Srinivasan in leader Srinivasan was killed on April 16, 2022, at his motorbike shop in Palakkad. The NIA maintains that the murder of Sreenivasan formed part of a broader conspiracy by the PFI to commit acts of terror in furtherance of its radical murder was allegedly carried out in retaliation for the killing of Social Democratic Party of India (SDPI) activist Subair, who was hacked to death one day earlier, on April 15, by suspected RSS workers in Elappully, SDPI worker was returning from a mosque around 1.30 am when a car hit his vehicle from behind. The passengers got down from the car and allegedly hacked him to death.- Ends IN THIS STORY#Kerala
Business Standard
4 hours ago
- Business Standard
Wife does not need husband's nod to get a passport, rules Madras HC
Madras High Court slams passport office for demanding husband's signature, says such practices reflect outdated patriarchal attitudes and violate a married woman's individual rights New Delhi The Madras High Court has ruled that a married woman does not require her husband's consent or signature to apply for a passport. The ruling came in response to a writ petition filed by a woman whose application was held up by the passport office due to the absence of her husband's signature on Form J — even though the couple is undergoing divorce proceedings, Bar and Bench reported. What led to the legal dispute? According to the court order, the woman and her husband were married in 2023 in accordance with Hindu customs. They had a daughter in 2024. However, the marriage soon turned sour, leading the husband to file for divorce in early 2025. The petition seeking dissolution of marriage is currently pending before the Sub Court. While the divorce case was still ongoing, the wife applied for a passport. The application was rejected by the passport office, which insisted she obtain her husband's signature in Form J — a requirement she found unreasonable, given the marital discord. When she explained her situation, officials reiterated that the only path forward was obtaining the husband's signature. Left with no other recourse, she moved the High Court, filing a writ petition against the Ministry of External Affairs, the passport office, and the Chennai Police, the news report said. What did the court observe? The Madras High Court took a firm stand on the issue. It expressed shock at the passport office's insistence, stating that the demand for a husband's permission reflects a deep-rooted patriarchal mindset. 'The insistence on part of the second respondent [passport office] shows the mindset of the society treating married women as if they are chattel belonging to the husband,' the court said. The government advocate representing the Chennai Police also confirmed that no criminal cases were pending against the woman. After examining the facts, the court said, 'In the considered view of this Court, the application submitted by the petitioner seeking for passport has to be processed independently. It is not necessary for a wife to get the permission of her husband and take his signature before applying for a passport before authority.' The court also noted the impracticality of expecting a woman embroiled in a legal separation to seek the husband's cooperation: 'Already the relationship between the petitioner (wife) and her husband is in doldrums and the second respondent [passport office] is expecting the petitioner to get the signature of the husband. Virtually, the second respondent is insisting the petitioner to fulfill an impossibility.' What the order say about women's rights? Reinforcing the autonomy of married women, the court stressed that a woman retains her individuality after marriage. 'The petitioner [wife] after marrying does not lose her individuality and a wife can always apply for a passport without the permission or signature of the husband in any form.' It further said, 'The practice of insisting for permission from the husband to apply for a passport, does not augur well for a society which is moving towards woman's emancipation. This practice is nothing short of male supremacism.' What was the final order? Concluding its order, the Madras High Court directed the passport office to process the woman's application without requiring her husband's signature. 'There shall be a direction to the 2nd respondent [passport office] to process the application submitted by the petitioner [wife] and issue a passport in the name of the petitioner on the petitioner satisfying the other requirements. This process shall be completed by the 2nd respondent within a period four weeks from the date of receipt of copy of the order.'
News18
4 hours ago
- News18
Inside PFI's Terror Plot: Judges, Activists, RSS Leaders On 'Hit Lists', Reveals NIA
Last Updated: The structure and functioning of PFI resemble that of terrorist organisations, incorporating surveillance-intelligence cells, armed squads, and global funding. The Popular Front of India (PFI) has been implicated in an extensive conspiracy to target Hindu civil society leadership in India, revealed through the meticulous investigations of the National Investigation Agency (NIA). This operation is not arbitrary but represents an ideologically driven, military-style effort aimed at neutralising key figures within India's Hindu community, including judges, activists, and political workers, sources have told CNN-News18. The structure and functioning of PFI resemble that of terrorist organisations, incorporating surveillance-intelligence cells, armed squads, and global funding. The NIA disclosed these findings in a court submission, indicating that PFI had compiled ' hit lists" targeting 977 individuals in Kerala alone. This information surfaced as the agency opposed the bail plea of two accused – Muhammad Bilal and Riyasudheen – in the Palakkad Sreenivasan murder case. Multiple hit lists were recovered, exposing the alarming scale of the conspiracy, as reported by several sources. One notable list, recovered from Sirajudheen, a member of PFI's so-called 'Reporter Wing", contained the names of 240 people, including prominent figures across various sectors, posing a substantial threat to public safety. Furthermore, 232 names came from Muhammed Sadik, a PFI insider turned approver, and another 500 were uncovered during a house search of the absconding accused Ayoob TA. Additionally, five individuals, including a former Kerala district judge, were found listed in Abdul Wahab's wallet, another key accused in this conspiracy. Sources indicate that these lists were prepared for selective assassinations aimed at destabilising communal harmony and polarising society. The targets primarily included members of the RSS, BJP, and other Hindu leaders, such as district-level organisers, temple trustees, and ideologues. The lists also included randomly selected Hindus, community elders, and public officials like district judges who resisted PFI-backed Dawah conversions or legal interference. At least five RSS leaders in Kerala were granted Y-category security in 2022 after being named in these hit lists. According to the NIA, PFI maintained a three-tier terror framework: the 'Reporter Wing" that tracked targets, created dossiers, and monitored their movements and social profiles; the 'Service Wing" and 'Hit Squads" that recruited low-income radicalised youth trained in the use of knives, swords, and stealth tactics; and the 'Training Cells" located in Aluva (Periyar Valley Campus) and Narath (Kannur), which served as combat and indoctrination hubs. The thorough investigations of the NIA connected these findings to other murders, including those of Sreenivasan in Palakkad (2022), Sanjith in Kerala (2021), Rudresh in Bengaluru (2016), Praveen Nettaru in Dakshina Kannada (2022), and V. Ramalingam in Tamil Nadu (2019). These killings were often methodical, involving machetes and carried out in daylight to invoke terror. Both the Delhi High Court and the NIA have cited PFI's 'India Vision 2047" as evidence of a long-term plan to overthrow the Indian Constitution and replace it with Sharia law. Systematically targeting Hindu leadership is seen as crucial to this objective. CNN-News18 had earlier reported that the Enforcement Directorate traced over Rs 120 crores in funds, mostly from Gulf-based hawala networks, and propaganda videos glorifying ISIS, Hamas, and the Taliban have been recovered from PFI's training camps. Additionally, the Social Democratic Party of India (SDPI), PFI's political front, provided cover by infiltrating local panchayats and municipal bodies while aiding radical operations at the grassroots level. Intelligence records indicate that at least 21 PFI members joined ISIS, further highlighting the complex domestic-international hybrid threat posed by the organisation.
