Justice Murali Purushothaman observed,

"Divorce resulting from a 'talak' pronounced by the husband is a mode of divorce recognised and accepted under Muslim personal law...divorcees applying for change of name or for deletion of spouse's name in existing passport are not required to produce court's order for judicial separation / decree of divorce."

The petitioner who is the holder of an Indian passport valid until April 5, 2032 got married in 2021, following which her spouse's name was entered in the spouse column in the passport. The marriage subsequently became estranged and was dissolved by mutual consent. An agreement was executed between the parties under which talaq was to be pronounced, with the first, second and third pronouncements taking place on October 9, November 9 and December 9, 2025 respectively.

The petitioner thereafter applied for re-issuance of her passport with deletion of her former husband's name. The application was not entertained on the ground that she had not produced a divorce order from a court. Hence, the petitioner approached the High Court contending that the reason for not entertaining her application for re-issuance of passport with deletion of name of her husband was illegal.

The Union Government argued by relying on an Office Memorandum dated September 6, 2024 issued by the Ministry of External Affairs. The memorandum prescribed a divorce order or decree as a mandatory document for deletion of a spouse's name from a passport.

The Court examined Section IV(B) of the Passport Information Booklet under Schedule III to the Passports Rules, 1980. The provision specifically concerns change of name or addition of a spouse's name on re-issue of a passport and includes divorcees seeking deletion of a spouse's name.

The provision states that, apart from the details furnished by the applicant, no proof of marriage or dissolution of marriage, including a court order for judicial separation or a decree of divorce, is required for the specified categories.

The Court held that the Schedule forms part of the Rules and therefore has statutory force. Since the Rules themselves dispense with documentary proof of dissolution of marriage for deletion of a spouse's name, the requirement could not be introduced through an executive office memorandum.

“It is well settled that executive instructions or office memorandums cannot override, amend, or supersede statutory rules. When the statute does not mandate the production of proof of dissolution of marriage for deletion of the spouse's name from the passport, such proof cannot be insisted upon through an office memorandum in the nature of Annexure R2(a).” Court held.

The Court also considered whether the form of divorce relied upon by the petitioner could be recognised for the purpose of updating her passport.

Referring to its earlier decisions, the Court noted that divorce resulting from talaq pronounced by the husband is a mode of divorce recognised and accepted under Muslim Personal Law. In Fathima Abdul Kareem v. State of Kerala [WP(C) 34730/ 2008], the High Court had held that authentication of divorce by a competent court is one method of proving divorce, but is not the only method.

Reliance was also placed on Kanjirathingal Abdul Khader Nissar v. Passport Officer [2009 KHC 4438], where the Court held that a formal decree of divorce was not necessary for deletion of the name of a Muslim divorced wife from her husband's passport.

The Court also relied on Ayshath Bunayath v. Union of India [2026 (4) KHC], where it was held that passport authorities could not refuse to accept a Mubaraat Nama as proof of dissolution of marriage merely because it was not a decree of divorce, since Mubaraat is a recognised mode of divorce under Muslim Personal Law.

Accordingly, the Court directed the Regional Passport Officer to consider the petitioner's application for re-issuance of her passport with deletion of her spouse's name without insisting on production of a decree of divorce from a competent court.

The writ petition was consequently disposed of.

Case Title: Raeesa Parveen v Union of India and Ors. 

Case No: WP(C) 7305/ 2026

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 524

Counsel for Petitioner: M. Shaju Purushothaman, K.S. Rajesh

Counsel for Respondents: O.M Shalina (DSGI)

Click Here To Read/Download Order