TWINKLE RAMESHKUMAR DHAMELIYA Vs. SUPERINTENDENT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Rule, Mr.M.A.Shaikh, Learned Additionall Central Government Standing Counsel waives service of rule on behalf of the respondent authorities. With the consent of learned counsel for the parties matter is taken up for final hearing today.

(2.) The short facts of the case are that on 17.4.2000 the petitioner married to one Chandulal Kunvarjibhai Kanani and the said marriage registration is registered with the Sub-Registrar, Rajkot. It appears that the petitioner applied for passport on her name as married to Chandulal Kanani. The respondent passport authorities on the basis of said application has issued passport bearing No.B 3283015 on 10.1.2001. It is the case of the petitioner that thereafter there were some disputes between the petitionner and her husband and as both belong to Patel community in the presence of the relatives and leaders of the Patel Community it was decided to put an end to the marriage and therefore divorce deed has been executed on 28.1.2002 in the presence of notary and the said divorce deed is also executed in the presence of two relatives of the petitioner as well as two relatives of her ex-husband Chandulal Kanani. It is also the case of the petitioner that thereafter she has married with Rameshkumar Jadavbhai Dhameliya on 17.2.2002. The petitioner has also applied for registration of marriage. However, the certificate from the Sub-Registrar of Marriages is awaited. As the petitioner is desirous to have the new passport showing her name as wife of Rameshkumar Jadavbhai Dhameliya the petitioner has applied for such purpose to the passport authorities. It appears that as per letter, dated 27.9.04 the petitioner is communicated by the passport authority that divorce deed duly registered by the Sub-Registrar is required to be produced. It is under these circumstances the petitioner has approached this court by preferring this petition.

(3.) I have heard Mr.Bhatt for the petitioner and Mr.Shaikh, Ld.Addl.Central Govt.Standing Counsel for the respondent authorities. It appears that on facts there is no dispute that the petitioner has made the application. However, in the affidavit in reply filed on behalf of the passport authority at para 4 it has been stated as under: