Husband’s consent and signature are immaterial for the wife to apply for the passport, says the Madras High Court.

Home
/
Publications
/
Case Snippets
/
Husband’s consent and...

In J Revathy v. Government of India (2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 210), the Madras High Court held that a wife does not need her husband’s authorisation or signature to apply for a passport. Justice Anand Venkatesh criticised the Passport Authority’s regressive insistence on such consent during pending divorce proceedings, affirming that marriage does not diminish a woman’s legal autonomy. The Court directed the Regional Passport Office to process and issue the petitioner’s passport within four weeks, subject to legal requirements.

Let us help you!

If you need any help, please feel free to contact us. We will get back to you within one business day. Alternatively, if you're in a hurry, you can call us now

+91 9052538538
info@karavadi.in

Recent Case Snippets

Supreme Court Reiterates Mandatory Guidelines for Execution of Decrees

Noting persistent delays in execution proceedings, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Periyammal (Dead) Though LRs & Ors. v. V. Rajamani & Anr. Etc1. reaffirmed mandatory guidelines established in Rahul S. Shah v. Jinendra Kumar Gandhi2 for conducting executing proceedings. Citing Bhoj Raj Garg v. Goyal Education and Welfare Society & Read more »

State Project Director, Up Education for All Project Board & Ors. Vs. Saroj Maurya & Ors., Civil Appeal No. 3465 OF 2023

The Hon’ble Supreme Court while dealing with an SLP set aside the judgment and remanded a matter back to the Division Bench of Hon’ble Allahabad High Court for parties to appear and argue afresh as the impugned judgment did not contain any reasoning and merely agreed with the judgment of Read more »

National Commission for Protection of Child Rights (NCPCR) Vs. State of Jharkhand & Ors.

In the case of National Commission for Protection of Child Rights (NCPCR) vs. State of Jharkhand & Ors., the Supreme Court dismissed a writ petition filed by the NCPCR under Article 32, emphasizing that statutory bodies created to protect fundamental rights cannot invoke Article 32 to enforce their mandates against Read more »