Review: Madras HC Rules that Wife Doesn’t Need Permission or Signature of Husband to Apply for Passport
In this edition of Court Judgements review, we look at the Supreme Court’s interim order about protection to a minor girl forced into Child Marriage, Bombay HC’s order that asked Son and Daughter-in-law to vacate the self-acquired property of Son’s parents, Madras HC’s order that wife doesn’t need permission or signature of husband to apply for Passport, among others.
SC: Grants protection to a minor girl forced into Child Marriage
In Nidhi Kumari (Petitioner) vs. State of Bihar & Ors, the petitioner is a minor girl. She was allegedly forced into child marriage in the year 2024. Hence, through her next friend, she approached the Supreme Court (SC) seeking to declare her marriage as null, take penal action against the concerned respondent no. 4 and others, and also grant protection to her and her next friend from them.
As an interim measure, the SC directed the Director General of Police (DGP) to ensure no harm is caused to the minor and her next friend.
Madras HC: Wife doesn’t need permission or signature of husband to apply for Passport
In the case of X (petitioner) vs. The Government of India & Ors, the Madras High Court (HC) held that a married woman retains her independent identity and rights, including the right to apply for a passport without needing her husband’s approval.
The facts of the case were that the petitioner approached the HC seeking a writ of mandamus to direct the Regional Passport Office to issue her a passport without requiring her husband’s signature. She was married in 2023 and had a child in 2024, but is currently facing a matrimonial dispute, with her husband having filed a case for dissolution of marriage pending before the Sub Court.
The authorities refused to process her application without her husband’s signature in Form-J. The HC observed that insisting on a husband’s permission or signature undermines a woman’s individuality and reflects a regressive societal mindset, as such requirements are unnecessary and discriminatory, especially in a society progressing toward women’s emancipation.
Accordingly, the passport office was directed to process her application independently, provided she fulfils all other formalities, and to issue the passport within four weeks.
Bombay HC: Orders Son and Daughter-in-law to vacate the self-acquired property of Son’s parents
In Chandiram Anandram Hemnani & Anr (Petitioners) vs. Senior Citizens Appellant Tribunal & Ors, the petitioners are senior citizens. They sought the eviction of their son and daughter-in-law (respondents 3 and 4) from their self-acquired home.
The son and daughter-in-law were married. Later, the daughter-in-law initiated proceedings against the husband and his parents under section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act and under sections 498-A, 323, 504 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code. The petitioners sought eviction of their house by their son and daughter-in-law. However, it was not agreed upon by both.
Therefore, invoking the provisions of the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act (Act), they approached the tribunal seeking the eviction of their son and daughter-in-law. Though the tribunal ruled in favour of the petitioners, directing the respondents to vacate the house, on appeal, the Senior Citizens Appellate Tribunal reversed the decision, treating it as a civil matter and suggesting the petitioners file a separate civil suit. Therefore, the petitioners approached the HC.
The HC strongly disagreed with the Appellate Tribunal’s view, highlighting that the Act is a beneficial legislation intended to protect both the maintenance and property rights of senior citizens. Therefore, it affirmed that eviction relief is permissible under the Act, especially when senior citizens are deprived of peace and ownership rights in their own property.
Further, it also held daughter-in-law had no legal claim to reside in the property, especially when she had independently purchased her own house. It also noted that she and her husband have not complied with the court’s interim order to pay ₹20,000 per month for their continued occupation of the property, and the husband and his parents were also acquitted in the proceedings initiated by the daughter-in-law.
Consequently, the Court quashed the Appellate Tribunal’s order and restored the original Tribunal’s direction for eviction. Respondents 3 and 4 were given 30 days to vacate the house and ordered to pay arrears along with costs.
Bombay HC: Permits medical termination of pregnancy for Minor Child victim of Rape
In X vs. Union of India, the Bombay HC permitted 12-year-and-5-month-old rape survivor to medically terminate her 28–29-week pregnancy.
The facts of the case were that the pregnancy resulted from a sexual assault by her cousin uncle, and a case had been registered under the Bharatiya Nyay Sanhita and POCSO Act. She approached HC seeking medical termination of pregnancy.
The HC directed a Medical Board to evaluate the case, which included specialists from gynaecology, paediatrics, psychiatry, pathology, radiology, and chest medicine. The Board opined that while the procedure (hysterotomy) involved high risk due to the girl’s age and foetal gestation, it could proceed with parental high-risk consent and the girl’s assent.
Given the girl’s and her parents’ informed consent, and the trauma associated with carrying a pregnancy caused by rape, the court ruled in favour of termination. The court underscored that forcing the victim to continue with the pregnancy would infringe her constitutional rights.
Thus, it allowed the termination procedure with full safety protocols and specialist involvement.
DCDRC: Finds mobile app developer ‘deficient in service’ and orders refund and penalty
In Mr. Amit Bharana (Complainant) vs. Mobulous Technologies Pvt. Ltd (Respondent), the Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (DCDRC) found the respondent, a mobile application (app) development company, deficient in service and ordered a refund and penalty.
The facts of the case were that the complainant had entered into an agreement with the respondent for the development of four mobile applications — “Conncct,” “Bakkrr,” “Tikkrr,” and “Snakkoo.” Complainant paid ₹18.6 lakhs in advance, with the project divided into seven time-bound milestones. Despite repeated follow-ups, Mobulous failed to deliver any completed work on time or fulfil any contractual milestones.
The complainant accused the company of false assurances, evasive communication, and ultimately ceasing all contact. In frustration, he withdrew the assignment and handed it over to another firm. Mobulous then falsely claimed to withdraw from the project itself. The complainant alleged a deficiency in service, unfair trade practices, and mental harassment. He filed a police complaint, issued a legal notice, and then approached the DCDRC.
The company denied all allegations, claiming the complainant altered project specifications frequently and defaulted on payments. However, they failed to file any evidence or arguments and did not cross-examine the complainant. Consequently, the Commission held that the complainant’s testimony remained unrebutted and fully credible. Thus, Mobulous Technologies was held guilty of deficiency in service.
The Commission directed the company to refund ₹18.6 lakhs to the petitioner with 6% interest (upgradable to 9% if not paid by 18 August 2025). Additionally, the company must pay ₹1,00,000 for mental agony and ₹50,000 towards litigation costs.
