JUDGMENT : 1. A quite familiar scenario these days; but unfortunate all the same, presents itself herein; with the parents of a child litigating for his custody and the re-issuance of the said child's passport being caught in such crossfire. 2. While the petitioner, who is the mother of the child seeks the re-issue of his passport, the father opposes it contending that the petitioner's attempt to remove the child from India is solely to frustrate his rights over him. 3. According to the petitioner, her son-Master Rehan Ali is 5 years in age and is studying in a School at Sharjah, where she is also presently working. She concedes that the relationship with her husband-the 2nd respondent herein, is now estranged and that litigations between them are pending before the competent Courts and Authorities, including with respect to the custody of Rehan Ali. 4. The petitioner asserts that, however, there are no orders, as of now, granting the custody of Rehan Ali to the 2nd respondent and therefore, that she is entitled to take care of him as his mother. She adds that if Rehan Ali is not re-issued a passport, his future will be in peril since he will be unable to attend classes and further that her career would also be prejudiced if she does not join back for work soon at Sharjah. She, therefore, prays that the 1st respondent-Passport Officer be directed to re-issue the passport in the name of Rehan Ali, notwithstanding the objections of the 2nd respondent. 5. In answer to the afore submissions made on behalf of the petitioner by Shri.Shajin S.Hameed, learned counsel appearing for the 2nd respondent – Smt.Santhi.M., submitted that a counter affidavit has been filed on record wherein the following averments have been made: It is humbly submitted that, I have filed the above said OP(G&W)No.1128/2016, but the petitioner herein never came before the Honourable family court, Trivandrum even after several direction to produce the minor ward. Thereafter, the said OP(G&W)No.1128/2016 was dismissed on 22/3/2017 for not taking steps. In fact the notice was sent in her Kerala address, but she purposefully evaded and thereby the said O.P was dismissed subsequently. Thereafter the said OP(G&W)No.1128/2016 was restored by filing I.A.No.1755/2017 and I.A.1756/2017 which are the restoration and delay petition consecutively. Thereafter, the said OP(G&W)No.1128/2016 was dismissed on 22/3/2017 for not taking steps. In fact the notice was sent in her Kerala address, but she purposefully evaded and thereby the said O.P was dismissed subsequently. Thereafter the said OP(G&W)No.1128/2016 was restored by filing I.A.No.1755/2017 and I.A.1756/2017 which are the restoration and delay petition consecutively. It is to be noted that the above restoration petition was allowed by the Honourable family court only after giving several postings from 7/8/2017, 20/10/2017, 26/12/2017, 26/5/2018, 26/7/2018 and in all above dates the petitioner herein was absent only to delay the process of the Honourable court. Thereby defeat the justice. It is humbly submitted that I filed I.A.No.2459/2018 for the interim custody of the child which was allowed and directed the petitioner herein to produce the child, but not complied by the petitioner herein. Later another I.A.No.658/2019 was filed by me for the interim custody of my son from March 1 to 15. When the above mentioned petition came before the Honourable family court on 25.2.2019 for hearing, the learned counsel for the respondent submitted that (After contacting the petitioner in Gulf) the ward is in gulf and the vacation will be started in the month of March and the ward can be produced before the court on 15/3/2019. According the I.A. was posted on 15/3/20189 with a direction to produce my minor child. When the case was taken on 15/3/2019 unfortunately, the petitioner herein filed another I.A. 869/2019 contenting that the family court, Trivandrum has no jurisdiction to entertain the above said petition and the ward can produce only in the month of July. It is humbly submitted that I intended only to meet and spend with my child and the saying is being refused by the petitioner wife with technical reason. The petitioner wife was never ever amenable to obey the order passed by the Honourable court. The negative and adamant character of the petitioner wife was seriously mentioned in Exhibit P3 order produced by the petitioner in the above said writ petition. Later on the petitioner herein filed OP(FC)No.284/2019 before this Honourable high court of Kerala, challenging Exhibit P3 order which made her set ex-parte. In the above said OP(FC) this Honourable court directed the petitioner wife to produce the minor ward before the court and it was also directed me to bear the travel expense of both the petitioner and the ward. In the above said OP(FC) this Honourable court directed the petitioner wife to produce the minor ward before the court and it was also directed me to bear the travel expense of both the petitioner and the ward. Accordingly the minor ward was produced and the above said OP(FC) was disposed of with a direction to produce the child before the family court, Trivanrum and to hand over the child from 10/7/2019 to 12/7/2019 during the day time which commence from 11 AM to 4 PM each day. It is to be kindly noted that the petitioner wife with malafide intentions handed over forged documents of her travel details to my counsel for getting exorbitant amount from me and the same was brought into notice of the Honourable court. Earlier also the petitioner wife forged my signature for the purpose NOC for my son at UAE. Though a complaint was initiated by me at UAE, I was forced to withdraw the complaint for the sake of my son's future. All these event shows that the petitioner wife is in habit of making false and forged documents. Later on 12/7/2019 I have filed another petition (exhibit P7) for the interim custody of minor son after knowing that, his school commences from September only after the ongoing vacation. And it is reliably learned that the minor is going to be remained there in Trivandrum District till September. It is further submitted that I have run from pillar to post for the custody of my son child from 2016 onwards and I was maintaining my child regularly even without any direction from the Honourable court. 6. After reading the afore averments, Smt.Santhi M. admits that as of today there are no orders from any Court or Authority granting custody or even visitation rights over Rehan Ali to her client. She, however, says that she is hopeful that such orders will be issued in the immediate future. She, therefore, prays that the child be not allowed to travel to Sharjah along with the petitioner and that his passport be not re issued, taking note of the afore averred conduct of the petitioner. 7. She, however, says that she is hopeful that such orders will be issued in the immediate future. She, therefore, prays that the child be not allowed to travel to Sharjah along with the petitioner and that his passport be not re issued, taking note of the afore averred conduct of the petitioner. 7. The learned Central Government Counsel, Shri.Jagadeesh Lakshman, submits that the 1st respondent-Passport Authority has not yet taken a final decision on the petitioner's application for re-issue of the passport of Rehan Ali only on account of the litigations that are stated to be pending between her and the 2nd respondent. He says that if this Court so directs, the Passport Authority is willing to re-issue the passport without any avoidable delay. 8. I have examined the materials on record and I have tested in against the submissions made before me by the learned counsel. 9. It is now well settled in law that unless the father or the mother, as the case may be, is able to demonstrate a right of custody or visitation over the child, which is recognized by law through a competent order, he/she cannot object to the request for issuance or re-issuance of passport in favour of the child, made at the instance of the other natural guardian. The applicable Statutes and Rules also renders this indubitable and therefore, unless the 2nd respondent is able to show that he has rights over the child, including for visitation, it would not be possible for him to stop re-issuance of passport in favour of Rehan Ali. Of course, I am aware that he has initiated action for the child's custody; and axiomatically, if any Court is to pass such an order, certainly the petitioner will be obligated to produce the child in terms of it before the competent Court, notwithstanding the observations in this judgment. 10. Uncontestedly, as matters now stand, since the 2nd respondent is unable to show me any order under which he has custody or visitation rights over Rehan Ali, I deem it appropriate to allow this writ petition, lest it causes detriment to the child's education and future life. 10. Uncontestedly, as matters now stand, since the 2nd respondent is unable to show me any order under which he has custody or visitation rights over Rehan Ali, I deem it appropriate to allow this writ petition, lest it causes detriment to the child's education and future life. Resultantly, I order this writ petition and direct the 1st respondent to re-issue the passport in the name of Rehan Ali forthwith, with a firm caveat that in case the 2nd respondent is able to obtain any lawful orders from any competent Authority or Court, the petitioner will be obligated to abide by it and to produce the child as per such orders; in which event, I caution her that the observations of this Court in this judgment will not authorise her, in any manner, to act contrary to it.