ORDER : 1. This writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been preferred claiming the following reliefs: “It is, therefore, petitioners most respectfully and humbly prayed that present writ petition may kindly be allowed and further pleased to issue the Writ of Mandamus or appropriate writ, order whereby respondent may kindly be directed that petitioner no.1 being biological mother of minor child as sole guardian of minor may kindly be permitted to travel abroad and in that regard respondent be directed to contact with the Embassy of Finland situation at New Delhi and to prove the necessary assistance in visa application proceeding of petitioners that no objection in present and future may be raised in respect of demanding the approval letter of biological father who is not in contact and taking interest of affairs of minor and petitioner no.1 be treated as sole guardian of minor child; Any other appropriate remedy which deem fit under the circumstance of case may be awarded in favour of petitioners.” 2. The bone of contention in the present case is the denial of issuance of Visa to the petitioners i.e. petitioner No.1-mother and petitioner no.2-minor daughter, by the Embassy of Finland, at New Delhi, in regard to the petitioners’ travel to Finland, on the ground that the requisite consent of biological father of petitioner No.2, in connection with her travel to Finland, was not furnished. 3. In nutshell, the facts of the case, as placed before this Court by learned counsel for the petitioners are that one Mr. Fergus Oliver, a resident of Ireland, during his visit to India, established physical relationship with petitioner No.1, on the false pretext of promise to marry; Mr. Oliver, thereafter, did not return back to India, nor remained in contact with the petitioner No.1, and thus, there was no question of the marriage being solemnized between petitioner No.1 and Mr. Oliver. Out of such relationship, petitioner No.1 became pregnant and gave birth to a daughter (petitioner No.2). 3.1 As per the petitioner No.1, Mr. Oliver (biological father of petitioner No.2) has not been in contact with her for last nine years. Oliver. Out of such relationship, petitioner No.1 became pregnant and gave birth to a daughter (petitioner No.2). 3.1 As per the petitioner No.1, Mr. Oliver (biological father of petitioner No.2) has not been in contact with her for last nine years. 3.2 Now, the petitioner No.1 alongwith her minor daughter (petitioner No.2) wants to meet their relatives, residing in Finland, but the request for issuance of Visa to them has been declined by the Embassy of Finland, at New Delhi, on the ground of non-furnishing of the consent of biological father of petitioner No.2 in regard to her travel to Finland. Hence, the present petition has been preferred claiming the aforequoted reliefs. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the aforementioned factual backdrop clearly reveals that the petitioner No.1 is the sole guardian (mother) of minor daughter (petitioner No.2), and that being so, she alone has been taking complete care of her minor daughter, since her birth. Thus, as per learned counsel, the petitioner No.2-minor daughter being in sole custody of the petitioner No.1, the mother is the sole guardian and parent of the minor child and therefore, is having all rights in relation to her interest, care and welfare. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioners further submits that in the given factual matrix, the refusal of issuance of Visa, on the ground as assigned by the Embassy of Finland, at New Delhi is not a justifiable ground, and thus, the petitioners are entitled to the reliefs prayed herein, more particularly, when earlier also, on two occasions, the petitioner No.1 alongwith her minor daughter-petitioner No.2, visited Finland, and that, in connection with such earlier visits, no objection regarding consent of biological father, was raised. 6. In support of his submissions, learned counsel for the petitioners placed reliance on the judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of ABC Vs. State (NCT of Delhi) AIR 2015 SC 2569 , relevant portion, as relied by learned counsel, reads as under: “14. Even in the absence of Laxmi Kant Pandey, we are not like mariners in unchartered troubled seas. The observations of a three Judge Bench of this Court in Githa Hariharan v. Reserve Bank of India (1999) 2 SCC 228 are readily recollected. The RBI had refused to accept an application for a fixed deposit in the name of the child signed solely by the mother. The observations of a three Judge Bench of this Court in Githa Hariharan v. Reserve Bank of India (1999) 2 SCC 228 are readily recollected. The RBI had refused to accept an application for a fixed deposit in the name of the child signed solely by the mother. In the context of Section 6 of the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act as well as Section 19 of the Guardians and Wards Act, this Court had clarified that “in all situations where the father is not in actual charge of the affairs of the minor either because of his indifference or because of an agreement between him and the mother of the minor (oral or written) and the minor is in the exclusive care and custody of the mother or the father for any other reason is unable to take care of the minor because of his physical and/or mental incapacity, the mother can act as natural guardian of the minor and all her actions would be valid even during the life time of the father who would be deemed to be “absent” for the purposes of Section 6(a) of the HMG Act and Section 19(b) of the GW Act.” This Court has construed the word ‘after’ in Section 6(a) of the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act as meaning “in the absence of – be it temporary or otherwise or total apathy of the father towards the child or even inability of the father by reason of ailment or otherwise.” Thus this Court interpreted the legislation before it in a manner conducive to granting the mother, who was the only involved parent, guardianship rights over the child. 15. In a case where one of the parents petitions the Court for appointment as guardian of her child, we think that the provisions of Section 11 would not be directly applicable. It seems to us that Section 11 applies to a situation where the guardianship of a child is sought by a third party, thereby making it essential for the welfare of the child being given in adoption to garner the views of child’s natural parents. The views of an uninvolved father are not essential, in our opinion, to protect the interests of a child born out of wedlock and being raised solely by his/her mother. The views of an uninvolved father are not essential, in our opinion, to protect the interests of a child born out of wedlock and being raised solely by his/her mother. We may reiterate that even in the face of the express terms of the statute, this Court had in Laxmi Kant Pandey directed that notice should not be sent to the parents, as that was likely to jeopardize the future and interest of the child who was being adopted. The sole factor for consideration before us, therefore, is the welfare of the minor child, regardless of the rights of the parents. We should not be misunderstood as having given our imprimatur to an attempt by one of the spouses to unilaterally seek custody of a child from the marriage behind the back of other spouse. The apprehensions of Mr. Luthra, learned amicus curiae, are accordingly addressed.” 7. Learned Deputy Solicitor General representing the Union of India fairly submits that they understand the agony of the mother and child, who are before this Court, but since the issue of Visa has to be dealt with by the Embassy of Finland, therefore, at best, they can offer their assistance through the Ministry of External Affairs, Government of India for the purpose of granting right to the petitioners to visit Finland on an Indian Passport, subject to final approval by Embassy of Finland. 8. Heard learned counsel for the parties as well as perused the record of the case, alongwith the judgment cited at the Bar. 9. This Court observes that the given factual matrix of the case clearly reveals that the petitioner No.1 is the sole guardian (mother) of the minor daughter (petitioner No.2) and thus, in the opinion of this Court, the consent of the biological father, as demanded by the Embassy of Finland, at New Delhi, is not at all warranted, more particularly, in light of the precedent law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of ABC Vs. State (NCT of Delhi) (supra). 10. In view of the above and in light of the precedent law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of ABC Vs. State (NCT of Delhi) (supra). 10. In view of the above and in light of the precedent law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of ABC Vs. State (NCT of Delhi) (supra), the present petition is disposed of with a direction to the respondent-Union of India to provide every possible assistance to the petitioners, who as per the averments made in the petition, are valid Indian Passport holders, so as to facilitate their travel to Finland, and in case they would be able to visit Finland, it shall be ensured that no objection in regard to absence of consent of biological father would be raised during such visit. Such an exercise shall be undertaken, while also keeping in view the fact that during earlier visits of the petitioners to Finland, as informed by learned counsel for the petitioners, no objection regarding non-furnishing of the biological father’s consent was raised. All pending applications also stand disposed.