← Library
Madras High CourtWP/38254/2025disposed of with direction

Siddharth Himekar v. Union Of India

2025-10-10Honourable Mr Justice M.Dhandapani5 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED: 10-10-2025

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE M.DHANDAPANI

1. Siddharth Himekar Petitioner(s) Vs

1. Union Of India Ministry Of External Affaris, Room No 8, Patiala House Tilak Marg, New Delhi 110 001 2.The Regional Passport Office (rpo) Head Post Office, Royala Towers No 2 And 3 Iv Floor, Old No 785, New No 158 Anna Salai Chennai 600 002 3.The High Commission Of India 3-5 Moonah Pl, Yarralumla Act 2600, Australia Respondent(s) PRAYER; This writ petition is filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Mandamus, directing the 3respondent to treat the order of Divorce, dated 22.05.2023 passed by the Family Court of Western Australia at Perth as a valid foreign judgement by a competent court of jurisdiction and update the petitioners spouse name as Siva Prema Siva and pass

For Petitioner(s):

Mr.B.Dinesh Kumar For Respondent:

Ms.S.Shalini, CGSC

ORDER

This petition has been filed seeking a direction to the 3respondent to treat the order of Divorce, dated 22.05.2023 passed by the Family Court of Western Australia at Perth as a valid foreign judgement by a competent court of jurisdiction and update the petitioners spouse name as Siva Prema Siva.

2. It is the case of the petitioner that the petitioner, an Indian Citizen, has resided abroad. The petitioner initially married one Sukanya Sundaram on 22.01.2018 but divorced by mutual consent. The petitioner remarried one Sevaprema Siva in Singapore in the year 2025. The petitioner requested the third respondent to change the spouse name in the passport due to divorce and the same is not considered. Hence, the present writ petition.

3. When the matter is taken up for hearing, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that this Court may permit the petitioner to make a fresh representation to the second respondent for change of the spouse name.

4. Heard the learned counsel for both side and perused the materials available on record.

5. Considering the fact that the petitioner has obtained passport initially from the first respondent. For making correction in the passport, the petitioner has made application before the third respondent, which is not sustainable.

6. Hence, the writ petition is dismissed. However, liberty is granted to the petitioner to make a fresh application before the second respondent for getting appropriate remedy. No costs.

10-10-2025 rli Index:Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Internet:Yes To 1.Union Of India Ministry Of External Affaris, Room No 8, Patiala House Tilak Marg, New Delhi 110 001 2.The Regional Passport Office (rpo) Head Post Office, Royala Towers No 2 And 3 Iv Floor, Old No 785, New No 158 Anna Salai Chennai 600

M.DHANDAPANI,J W.P.No.38254 of 2025 10.10.2025

10-10-2025