Wife does not need her husband's permission to get a passport, says High Court; Know more

Time of India

25-06-2025

Madras High Court ruled that a wife does not require her husband's permission for passport application. The court rebukes passport office for demanding husband's signature in Form J. The High Court said this practice is male supremacism. The court directs passport office to process the wife's application independently of her divorce case. Read more to know the details
Tired of too many ads?
Remove Ads
Tired of too many ads?
Remove Ads
How did this case start?
2023: The couple married in 2023 following Hindu Rituals and Traditions.
The couple married in 2023 following Hindu Rituals and Traditions. 2024: A female child was born to this married couple.
A female child was born to this married couple. 2025: There was a matrimonial dispute between the parties which resulted in the husband filing Hindu Marriage Original Petition No. 289 of 2025, before the Sub Court seeking for the dissolution of the marriage. This divorce petition is pending.
There was a matrimonial dispute between the parties which resulted in the husband filing Hindu Marriage Original Petition No. 289 of 2025, before the Sub Court seeking for the dissolution of the marriage. This divorce petition is pending. April 24, 2025: Wife applied for a passport in the passport office.
What did Madras High Court say?
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 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.
It is quite shocking that the passport office insisted for the permission of the husband and his signature in a particular form in order to process the application submitted by the petitioner for the passport.
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 (passport office) is insisting the petitioner to fulfill an impossibility.
Madras High Court final judgement: Women does not lose 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.
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 precedent does this judgement set?
Tired of too many ads?
Remove Ads
On June 18, 2025, the Madras High Court ruled that a wife does not need her husband's permission to apply for a passport. Additionally, the High Court also expressed shock at the passport office's actions, stating that their demand for a husband's signature in wife's passport application reflects a societal mindset that views married women as their husband's chattel (personal possession).The Madras High Court also 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 emancipation. This practice is nothing short of male supremacism.'The judgement came out in the context of her ongoing divorce case . The husband had filed a divorce petition which was still pending and in the meantime the wife applied for a passport. The passport office said they could not process her application because she did not get her husband's signature in Form J.When she informed the passport office about her ongoing divorce case, they told her that the only way she can obtain a passport was to get her husband's signature on Form J. That's why she filed a writ petition in the Madras High Court against the Ministry of External Affairs (MEA), the passport office and Chennai Police.Check out the details below to learn more about this wife's passport situation in the context of her pending divorce case and what the husband should note about it.According to the order of the Madras High Court dated June 18, 2025, here's a timeline of events:After her passport application was not processed due to lack of husband's signature, she filed a writ petition in the Madras High Court.The government advocate representing Chennai Police told the High Court that the wife has no pending criminal cases.Here's what Madras High Court said after analysing the facts of this case:The Madras High Court said on June 18, 2025:Judgement: 'In the light of the above discussion, there shall be a direction to the 2nd respondent (passport office) to process the application submitted by the petitioner (wife) and issue 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.'ET Wealth Online asked various lawyers what precedence this judgement may set; here's what they said:This judgment sets a landmark precedent that reinforces the legal principle that marital status cannot override an individual's statutory and constitutional rights. It challenges systemic administrative practices and bureaucratic guidelines that may perpetuate gender-based subordination, particularly in matters related to identity documents, mobility, and personal decision-making.By emphasizing that no spouse—irrespective of gender—can act as a gatekeeper to the other's legal rights, the Court has laid down a binding precedent for future cases involving documentation, consent, and autonomy. It also obligates public authorities, including the Passport Office and other civic bodies, to realign their procedures in line with constitutional morality and gender-neutral governance.In the broader legal landscape, it strengthens the jurisprudence surrounding women's independence within the institution of marriage, echoing previous rulings such as Shayara Bano v. Union of India (2017) and Joseph Shine v. Union of India (2018).This is a significant judgment as it strongly reaffirms a woman's individual legal identity and autonomy, especially in matters related to state documentation like passports.While holding that a married woman does not require her husband's permission or signature to apply for or obtain a passport, the Court also condemned the refusal by the passport office to process the application without the husband's signature as it reflected an outdated patriarchal mindset.This judgement sends a strong message to the government bodies and the society at large against gender bias and further supports the constitutional right to equality and dignity of the women.This judgment underscores the judiciary's commitment to women's emancipation and gender equality, challenging outdated administrative practices that perpetuate gender-based discrimination. This will likely lead to necessary amendments in passport application procedures to align with this ruling. The ruling is particularly impactful for women in strained marital relationships, as it prevents the husband's side from leveraging passport application as a pressure tactic in contested divorce litigation.A woman's right to obtain passport is not gender based but it's her constitutional right under Article 14 and Article 21 . It's her right in personam.The passport Act of 1967 governs how passports are issued and the new Passport Rules of 2016 no longer require a husband's consent or a marriage certificate for applying or obtaining a passport. Moreover, a woman has the freedom to choose if she wants to retain her maiden name after marriage. This isn't just about empowering women or has anything to do with how progressive a society is getting. It's about asserting and affirming what is already given to a woman as a matter of right.In the present case, the woman was dealing with personal issues related to her marriage facing difficulties, and in such a situation, it's absolutely unnecessary and unreasonable to insist on her husband's approval. Every Indian, whether a man or a woman, has a right to travel abroad which naturally leads to his or her right to obtain a passport and since it's an individual right, there is no justification for requiring permission.A passport can only be denied based on reasons outlined in Section 6 of the Passports Act which include national security concerns, ongoing criminal proceedings and withholding important information, and for no other reason whatsoever.