Teenager moves Delhi HC seeking step-father’s name in passport

A minor has questioned in the Delhi high court the decision of the passport department refusing to include the name of his step father instead of his biological father in the passport.

A minor has questioned in the Delhi high court the decision of the passport department refusing to include the name of his stepfather instead of his biological father in the passport.

A teenager has moved the Delhi high court against the decision of the passport office to not include the name of his stepfather. (HT FIle Photo)

“We will look into the issue,” Chief Justice G Rohini and Justice Jayanth Nath said while asking the Regional Passport Office of Ministry of External Affairs as to why the grievance of the 17-year-old boy be not considered.

The bench has posted the matter for further hearing on January 8.

The minor’s petition said that his mother was married to one Kapil Gupta in 1997 at Ludhiana and out of the marriage wedlock, the petitioner was born on June 1, 1998.

The boy, who studies in class 12, said that in 1999 his mother divorced his father, Kapil Gupta, and subsequently remarried one Raj Kumar Gupta.

“Since the dissolution of the marriage, petitioner always remained with her mother and even the whereabouts of Kapil Gupta is not known. Petitioner further submits that after the divorce, Kapil Gupta has not made any attempt to even inquire about the welfare of the petitioner,” the plea filed by his mother through advocate K. Venkatraman, said.

Rajkumar Gupta as his father/non biological father/legal guardian as illegal and arbitrary.

The RPO has in its order stated that as per the Passport Manual, passport cannot be issued without biological father’s name.

He claimed that in the date of birth certificate only the name of the biological father Kapil Gupta is shown, while in the subsequent records including Aadhar card, CBSE certificate as well as the passport of the mother of the petitioner, the name of her husband is shown as Rajkumar Gupta.

On September 23, a single judge bench of Justice Rajiv Sahai Endlaw had directed the matter to be placed before the bench of the Chief Justice “so that a finality is attained to an issue which appears to be arising frequently.”