SHEMI P ALI Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The contentions raised in these two writ petitions are common. The issue involved is also the same. Therefore, they have been heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment. I will refer to the facts in WP (C)No. 33729/08 in the first instance.

(2.) The petitioner applied for a passport on 29.04.2008 for Hajj pilgrimage. The earlier passport, which she held, had time expired. The petitioner was earlier married to one Beeran, but there was a divorce, on her husband pronouncing 'Talak', in the year 1994. She then married Abdul Kareem, her present husband. She surrendered the old passport for a new passport. Obviously, the petitioner sought for a change of the name of her husband from Beeran to Abdul Kareem. The petitioner was asked to swear to an affidavit affirming that Fathima Beevi, as shown in the passport which had time expired, and Fathima Abdul Kareem, which is the name given by her in the application for the issuance of new passport, are one and the same. Ext. P2 affidavit was filed and it was attested by a notary public. The petitioner was then asked to produce an affidavit Annexure A. The said affidavit was filed as Ext. P4 and produced along with it, was a certificate from the Kanjirakkad Muslim Jam-ath affirming the dissolution of the earlier matrimonial relationship and the petitioner getting married to Abdul Kareem. In spite of this, a new passport was not issued and hence this writ petition.

(3.) When the petitioner had approached this court earlier in W.P.(C)No.30580/08, on instructions, learned Central Government Standing Counsel had submitted that the passport officers are now insisting on an authentication of the divorce from a competent court as per Ext. P10 issued from the Law Department of the State Government. In these circumstances, the earlier writ petition was withdrawn without prejudice to the petitioner's contentions and with liberty to challenge Ext. P10. It is, therefore, the present writ petition has been filed.