Patna High Court
Mayank MohanversusThe Union of India
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISPOSED
- Bench
- ANIL KUMAR SINHA
Holding
The passport authorities cannot demand a declaratory order from Indian courts for a foreign divorce decree when the Passport Rules, 1980 (as amended) do not require such proof and the foreign decree is not contrary to Indian law.
Summary
The petitioner, an Indian citizen employed in South Korea, obtained a mutual‑consent divorce in a South Korean family court in 2024 and remarried a Korean national in 2025. He applied to the Regional Passport Office, Patna, to renew his passport and replace his ex‑wife’s name with that of his current wife. The passport authorities refused, insisting that a declaratory order from an Indian civil court confirming the foreign divorce was required under Clause 3.3.2 of the Compendium of Instructions. The petitioner contended that the Passport Rules, 1980 (as amended in 2016) do not require any proof of dissolution for a name change, and that the foreign decree is conclusive under Sections 13 and 14 of the Code of Civil Procedure and not contrary to Indian law. Relying on Supreme Court, Kerala High Court and Telangana High Court precedents, the court held that administrative instructions cannot override statutory rules and that the passport authority’s demand was unlawful. Consequently, the court directed the passport office to process the petitioner’s application within 15 days without requiring a declaratory order.
Issues considered
- Whether the passport authorities may require a declaratory order from an Indian civil court to authenticate a foreign divorce decree for passport name‑change purposes.
- Whether the Passport Rules, 1980 (as amended) mandate any proof of dissolution of marriage for a change of spouse’s name in a passport.
- Whether the foreign divorce decree is conclusive and enforceable under Sections 13 and 14 of the Code of Civil Procedure.
Legislation cited
- Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 — s. 13, 14
- Passport Act, 1967 — s. 24
- Passport Rules, 1980 — s. Amendment 2016, Clause 2(B)
Subjects
- passport
- foreign divorce
- name change
- declaratory order
- Compendium of Instructions
- Section 24 Passport Act
- CPC Section 13
- CPC Section 14
- mutual consent divorce
- recognition of foreign judgment
- constitutional articles 14 19 21
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.18822 of 2025
======================================================
Mayank Mohan Son of Madhav Sharan Tiwari, Resident of Madhukunj,
Baswaria, Bettiah, P.S.- Bettiah, District- West Champaran- 845438 also
resident at R-185, 3nd Floor, R-Block, Greater Kailash, P.O.- Greater Kailash,
District- South Delhi- Delhi-110048.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The Union of India through the Secretary, the Ministry of External Affairs,
Government of India at New Delhi.
2. The Office of the Chief Passport Officer (CPO), Passport Seva Programme
(PSP) Division, Ministry of External Affairs, Room No.- 21, Patiala House,
Tilak Marg, New Delhi-110001.
3. The Regional Passport Officer, Patna having office at 2nd and 3rd Floor, D-
Block, Maurya Lok Complex, Patna, Bihar- 800001.
4. The Public Grievances Officer, PSP Division, Ministry of External Affairs,
Room No.- 24, Patiala House, Tilak Marg, New-Delhi-110001.
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Sanchay Srivastava
Mr. Aalekh Anand
Mr. Sushant Srivastava
Mrs. Sonali Priya
Mr. Ashish Kumar Palit
For the Respondent/s : Mr. Ram Tujabh Singh-CGC
Mr. Radhika Raman
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR SINHA
ORAL ORDER
6 08-01-2026 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties concerned.
2. The marriage of the petitioner was celebrated in
South Korea on 13.12.2013 with Seunga Yang. The marriage
was registered in South Korea, and the petitioner, being Indian
also got it registered in India. The petitioner and his first wife
filed a petition for divorce before the Family Court in South
Patna High Court CWJC No.18822 of 2025(6) dt.08-01-2026
2/15
Korea on the ground of mutual consent and the decree of
divorce was passed after mediation, etc., on 11.11.2024 on the
ground of mutual consent, as per the South Korean law.
Subsequently, the petitioner solemnized his marriage with
another Korean girl, namely, Daun Jung, on 13.02.2025 in
Incheon, South Korea. This marriage was also registered in both
countries i.e. South Korea as well as in India.
3. The petitioner filed an application for change of
name of his spouse as per the relevant rules (Passport Rules,
1980) on 07.08.2025. However, the respondents-passport
authorities, did not allow the operation of the passport by
changing the name of the present spouse of the petitioner on the
ground that, as per Clause 3.3.2 of the Compendium of
Instructions, an application must be submitted by the parties at
the competent Indian civil court and a declaratory order
authenticating and confirming that the foreign divorce decree is
in accordance with Indian law must be obtained by the
concerned parties, before the mutual/contested foreign divorce
is accepted by the Passport Issuing Authorities for grant of
passport service.
4. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid, the petitioner
has filed the present writ application for quashing and setting
Patna High Court CWJC No.18822 of 2025(6) dt.08-01-2026
3/15
aside the letter, having Letter reference No.
SCN/1051024237/25, dated 30.10.2025, issued by the Regional
Passport Office, Patna, whereby the petitioner has been directed
to furnish a declaratory order by Indian Courts authenticating
the Degree/Order of Divorce passed in favour of the petitioner
on mutual consent by the competent court in South Korea.
5. The petitioner has further prayed for mandamus
directing the authorities to allow the updation of the passport by
changing the name of his present wife in the passport, without
demanding any declaratory order by the Indian civil courts, and
to forthwith issue an updated passport to the petitioner.
6. Mr. Sanchay Srivastava, learned counsel
appearing for the petitioner, submits that the petitioner is an
Indian citizen, having Passport No. Z4068695 and is working in
South Korea (Officially Republic of Korea) since 2008.
7. The petitioner is an employee of Samsung
Electronics, having its headquarters at South Korea, and at
present he is Senior Director in Indian Subsidiary of Samsung
Electronics on deputation of three years in India for a term
which is ending in June, 2026.
8. During his stay at South Korea, the petitioner
solemnized marriage with Seunga Yang in the year 2013 in
Patna High Court CWJC No.18822 of 2025(6) dt.08-01-2026
4/15
South Korea itself under the South Korean law and the marriage
was registered both in South Korea and in India as well.
9. Subsequently, both the petitioner and Ms.
Seunga Yang, mutually decided to dissolve the marriage and
filed a divorce suit before the competent Family Court at Suwon
Family Court in South Korea on the ground of mutual consent.
The Family Court at South Korea, after hearing both the parties
and after following the due process of law, including the
mediation, passed a decree of divorce on mutual consent on
11.11.2024. The order of decree of divorce passed by the Family
Court has been annexed at Annexure P-2 to the application.
10. Learned counsel next submits that a divorce
on mutual consent is available in both the jurisdictions, in South
Korea as well as in India, but since the marriage was solemnized
in South Korea and the petitioner as well as his divorced wife
were living together in South Korea, it was mutually decided by
them to approach the South Korea court of competent
jurisdiction for dissolution of their marriage by mutual consent.
11. Ms. Seunga Yang is a South Korean national
and the petitioner is a permanent resident of South Korea.
12. After the decree of dissolution of marriage
with Ms. Seunga Yang, the petitioner married another girl, who
Patna High Court CWJC No.18822 of 2025(6) dt.08-01-2026
5/15
is also a South Korean national, namely, Daun Jung, on
13.02.2025 in Incheon, South Korea. This marriage was also
solemnized in South Korea and later on registered in India as
well.
13. The petitioner is having a touring job and
keeps on moving from South Korea to India and vice versa due
to professional engagements. The passport of the petitioner,
issued in India, is valid till 16.11.2026, and it was supposed to
be renewed thereafter. Since the petitioner was working on
deputation in India, the petitioner thought it wise to submit his
passport for updation of name of his present wife before the
Regional Passport Office at Patna, so that he may not face any
last-minute difficulty in future.
14 Accordingly, the petitioner submitted an
application on 08.08.2025 for renewal of passport and for
change of his spouse name. The petitioner made a request for
change of his ex-wife name, namely, Seunga Yang to his present
wife name, namely, Daun Jung.
15. The Embassy to the Republic of Korea (South
Korea) vide its letter, having Letter Ref. No. CON-25-57, dated
22.10.2025, has clarified that there is no objection regarding the
second marriage of the petitioner and nobody in the Republic of
Patna High Court CWJC No.18822 of 2025(6) dt.08-01-2026
6/15
Korea (South Korea) has made any objection in this regard.
16. Due to his official position, the petitioner is
required to visit Samsung Headquarters in South Korea at least
twice a year for business performance review and once in a year
for medical check-up (as mandatory policy in South Korea in
large company). The petitioner’s medical check-up for the year
2025 and 2nd business performance review in South Korea are
due and he may face adverse impact on his career and even the
company, wherein he his currently employed may face penalty
for violating the mandatory policy for large companies. Even
the employer company has issued a letter/certificate, dated
10.11.2025 in this regard. The petitioner is, therefore, required
to visit South Korea before the end of the year 2025.
17. It has further been argued that the Central
Government, in exercise of power conferred under Section 24 of
the Passport Act, 1967, amended the Passport Rules, 1980, by
the Passport (Amendment) Rules, 2016, which came into force
on the date of its publication in the Official Gazette vide Gazette
Notification, dated 23.12.2016, having Notification No.
G.S.R.1171 (E).
18. From perusal of the said amendment, it is
clear that except the details provided by the applicant of the
Patna High Court CWJC No.18822 of 2025(6) dt.08-01-2026
7/15
passport in the application form, no proof of
marriage/dissolution of marriage (court’s order for judicial
separation/decree of divorce) etc. is required.
19. Accordingly, the submission is that insistence
of respondent-authorities in demanding a declaratory order from
the Indian civil courts, authenticating and confirming the decree
of divorce obtained by the petitioner on the ground of mutual
consent from the competent court in South Korea, is contrary to
the Passport Rules, 1980, inasmuch as the notification, dated
23.12.2016, explicitly dispenses with the requirement of any
additional proof or court order for change of name of spouse in
the passport following marriage, re-marriage or divorce. The
action of the respondent-authorities in insisting for declaratory
order from Indian Civil Court is arbitrary, unreasonable and
violative of Articles 14, 19 and 21 of the Constitution of India.
20. Learned counsel relied upon the judgment of
Supreme Court in case of Jaiveer Singh and Ors. v. State of
Uttarakhand and Ors. (Civil Appeals No. 7871-72 of 2023
with No. 7873 of 2023), reported in (2024) 15 SCC 227, on the
proposition that the Government cannot amend or supersede
statutory rules by administrative instructions, but if the rules are
silent on any particular point, it can fill up the gaps and
Patna High Court CWJC No.18822 of 2025(6) dt.08-01-2026
8/15
supplement the rules and issue instructions not inconsistent with
the rules already framed. The authority cannot issue order/
public memorandum/executive instructions in contravention of
the statutory rules.
21. The Rules specifically provides that in the
application form for change of name of spouse, no proof of
marriage, dissolution of marriage, etc. is required. Therefore,
insistence of the respondents-authorities in demanding a
declaratory order from the Indian civil courts, authenticating
and confirming the decree of divorce, obtained by the petitioner
on the ground of mutual consent from the South Korean court
on the basis of compendium, which is in the nature of guideline,
is bad in view of the specific provisions for change of name of
spouse in the passport as provided in the relevant rules.
22. Learned counsel, thereafter, referred to
Section 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure dealing with the
foreign judgments and submits that as per the Section 13 of the
Code of Civil Procedure, the foreign judgment shall be
conclusive as to any matter thereby directly adjudicated upon
between the same parties or parties under whom they or any of
them claim litigating under the same title except:-
(a) where it has not been pronounced by a Court of
Patna High Court CWJC No.18822 of 2025(6) dt.08-01-2026
9/15
competent jurisdiction;
(b) where it has not been given on the merits of the
case;
(c) where it appears on the face of the proceedings
to be founded on an incorrect view of international
law or a refusal to recognise the law of India in
cases in which such law is applicable;
(d) where the proceedings in which the judgment
was obtained are opposed to natural justice;
(e) where it has been obtained by fraud;
(f) where it sustains a claim founded on a breach of
any law in force in India.
23. The judgment passed by the competent court
at South Korea is not falling under the exceptions as given in
Section 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure and it is not the case
of the passport authority that the decree of divorce granted by
the competent court of South Korea is contrary to the Indian
laws and is against the public policy. He has also pointed out
that Section 14 of the Code of Civil Procedure, for the purpose,
that there is presumption of correctness of foreign judgment
unless the contrary appears on record.
24. He next relied upon the judgment of Kerala
High Court on the similar issue and submitted that the Hon’ble
Kerala High Court in the case of Nibu Mathew Titus v. The
Patna High Court CWJC No.18822 of 2025(6) dt.08-01-2026
10/15
Union of India and Ors., passed in (WP (C). No. 34864 of
2019(G)), taking into note of judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme
Court passed in (1991) 3 SCC 451, in the case of Y. Narasimha
Rao and Ors. v. Y. Venkata Lakshmi and Ors., as referred in
the Clause 3.3.1 of the Compendium of Instructions/Guidelines
Relating to issue of Passports in India/Abroad, has held that
Compendium of Instructions cannot be construed to be a law
and part-take the character applicability of Rules which have
force of law and directed the respondent-passport authorities to
take into consideration the application strictly as per the
Passport Rules, 1980, without delving into the Compendium of
Instructions.
25. Learned counsel also relied upon the
judgment of Telangana High Court on similar point, by which,
the Hon’ble Telangana High Court, in the case of Smt. Hima
Bindu Maguluri v. Union of India, passed in Writ Petition
No. 13669 of 2025, has held that respondents’ insistence upon a
declaratory order is unjustified when the foreign court had
jurisdiction and both the parties had voluntarily participated in
the proceedings leading to dissolution of marriage.
26. On the other hand, learned counsel for the
respondents-passport authorities argued that as per Clause 3.3.2
Patna High Court CWJC No.18822 of 2025(6) dt.08-01-2026
11/15
of the Compendium of Instructions, in case of mutually agreed
or mutual properly contested divorce cases also, an application
must be submitted by the parties at the competent Indian civil
court and a declaratory order authenticating and confirming that
the foreign divorce decree is in accordance with Indian law must
be obtained by the concerned parties, before the
mutual/contested foreign divorce is accepted by the Passport
Issuing Authorities for grant of any passport service.
27. I have heard learned counsel for the parties
and have gone through the materials available on record,
including the relevant rules and judgments relied upon by the
petitioner.
28. The facts are not disputed that the petitioner
celebrated his first marriage with Ms. Seunga Yang in South
Korea while he was permanently residing and working in South
Korea. The decree of divorce has been obtained from the Family
Court of South Korea on 11.11.2024, for which Notarial
Certification has been issued by the South Korea, along with
translated copies.
29. Subsequently, the petitioner solemnized
marriage with another South Korea girl, namely, Daun Jung, on
13.02.2025, as per the South Korean law and the marriage was
Patna High Court CWJC No.18822 of 2025(6) dt.08-01-2026
12/15
registered in South Korea as well as in India.
30. Since the passport of the petitioner, which is
valid till 16.11.2026, was holding the name of his ex-wife,
namely, Seunga Yang, and the petitioner is in India in relation to
his professional work/engagement, he thought it appropriate to
get the passport updated by changing the name of his ex-wife
with his present wife, namely, Daun Jung.
31. Accordingly, the petitioner applied as per the
relevant rules, which is the Passport Rules, 1980, and its
amendment held in the year 2016, for change of name of his ex-
wife, namely, Seunga Yang, and updation of his passport by
adding the name of his present wife, namely, Daun Jung, in the
column of spouse as well as for renewal of the passport, which
is expiring on 16.11.2026.
32. The relevant rules, which has been brought on
record and has not been denied by the respondents, is the
Passport Rules, 1980, and in exercise of the power conferred in
Section 24 of the Passport Rules, 1967, the Central Government
amended the Rules and a notification in this regard was issued
in Official Gazette on 23.12.2016 vide Gazette No. G.S.R. 1171
(E).
33. Clause 2 (B) of the Passport (Amendment)
Patna High Court CWJC No.18822 of 2025(6) dt.08-01-2026
13/15
Rules, 2016, deals with the change of name/addition of spouse’s
name in passport on reissue basis and says that re-married
applicant applying for change of name of spouse in the passport
is not required to provide any other proof/dissolution of
marriage, except the details provided by the applicant in the
application form.
34. The foreign judgment of divorce on the
ground of mutual consent is not contrary to the Indian laws and
also not contrary to the public policy of India.
35. It is not the case of the respondents that the
decree of divorce on mutual consent passed by the foreign court
is falling under the exception as provided under Section 13 of
the Code of Civil Procedure. There is presumption of
correctness of foreign judgments if the judgment was
pronounced by a competent court of jurisdiction, unless the
contrary appears on record.
36. The respondents have failed to produce any
material to show that the decree of divorce passed by the Family
Court at South Korea was not a competent court of jurisdiction.
37. The law is settled that any executive
/administrative instructions cannot supersede or over-ride
statutory rules. The statutory rules in the present case, which is
Patna High Court CWJC No.18822 of 2025(6) dt.08-01-2026
14/15
the Passport Rules, 1980, does not have any provision requiring
the citizen seeking updation of the passport or passport on the
basis of foreign decree to submit a declaratory order passed by
Indian Civil Court.
38. On the contrary, the rules says that no proof of
dissolution of marriage is required to be submitted for change of
name or addition of spouse name in the passport.
39. Considering the aforesaid discussion and the
fact that the petitioner has duly applied for change of name of
spouse on the basis of decree of divorce passed by the
competent court at South Korea and no doubt upon the said
judgment in respect of his lack of jurisdiction has been
expressed by the respondent-authorities and the decree of
divorce passed by the foreign court is not in inconsistent with
the Indian law and/or public policy, the insistence of the
respondent-passport authorities in demanding a declaratory
order from Indian civil courts is contrary to the Passport Rules,
1980, amended as on 26.12.2016.
40. Accordingly, the respondents, particularly, the
Passport Authority at Patna are directed to take appropriate
decision on the application of the petitioner for renewal and
change of name of spouse as per the Passport Rules, 1980,
Patna High Court CWJC No.18822 of 2025(6) dt.08-01-2026
15/15
within a period of 15 days without insisting upon the
requirement of declaratory order authenticating and confirming
the foreign divorce decree as per Clause 3.3.2 of Compendium
of Instruction/Guidelines.
41. In the result, this writ application is allowed.
42. There shall be no order as to costs.
(Anil Kumar Sinha, J)
ashwani/-
U
Checking your session…