A Kerala High Court ruling directs passport authorities to reconsider a Muslim woman's application seeking to remove her former husband's name without a court decree.
The Kerala High Court has ruled that passport authorities cannot require a divorced person to produce a court divorce decree to delete a former spouse's name from their passport. Justice Murali Purushothaman cited Schedule III to the Passport Rules, 1980, and held that executive instructions or office memorandums cannot override statutory rules, according to Bar & Bench. [1] [1]
The case arose from a petition by a Muslim woman who sought re-issuance of her passport after deleting her former husband's name. Passport authorities rejected her application because she did not produce a court divorce order, but she and her husband had divorced through Talaq under personal Muslim law in 2025 following an agreement between them. She had no court decree to produce as demanded. [1] [1]
Defending their position, the passport authorities relied on a September 2024 office memorandum from the Ministry of External Affairs that made a divorce decree mandatory for deleting a spouse's name, saying the earlier liberalised procedure was being misused by applicants entering third persons as spouses without their knowledge. The Court found no such requirement in the passport rules. [1] [1]
The Court also referred to its earlier decision in Ayshath Bunayath v Union of India, which held that passport authorities could not insist on a divorce decree when a marriage had been dissolved through Mubaraat. It added that Talaq pronounced by a husband is a recognised mode of divorce under Muslim personal law even without documentary evidence. The Regional Passport Officer was directed to reconsider the woman's application and decide within one month. [1] [1]
The discovery title focused on deletion of an ex-spouse's name from a passport; the captured source does address this topic, but it is a single publisher report rather than an original court document.
Only one readable source was captured and no original judgment was obtained, so independent corroboration is not established.
The report describes the Court's reasoning and the authorities' justification, but the underlying office memorandum and the actual judgment text were not captured.
The date of the ruling is not specified beyond 'recently' in the reporting, and the one-month compliance deadline runs from the Court's direction, not a confirmed start date.
No evidence was captured regarding whether the Regional Passport Officer has complied with or will comply with the direction.
No original document was captured. Available evidence consists of publisher reporting.
Only one readable source was captured; independent corroboration is not established.
Some candidate sources were inaccessible or outside the supported research domains; consult the capture log.
[1] Bar & Bench · Divorce decree not needed to delete ex-spouse's name from passport: Kerala High Court ↗
17/9/2026 · Publisher reporting
Source records and any dated corrections accompany this article.
Corrections & clarificationsA Lok Sabha answer says there is presently no proposal to impose UPI transaction charges, while a YourStory report describes a 0.4% merchant discount rate above Rs 2,000 and competing brokerage estimates of what it could yield.
A single YourStory report says Applied Materials announced a decade-long $5B India plan at SEMICON India 2026, including a 140-acre research park and a doubled R&D workforce by 2035. PIB materials place Applied Materials at the event and at a PM-chaired roundtable held separately at Seva Teerth on 16 September 2026, but do not carry the figures.
The captured research addresses launch-market competition and space-based AI compute, but supplies no India-versus-SpaceX cost-per-kilogram comparison. Our draft states only what the papers model.