Research › Search › Judgment

Calcutta High Court · body

2026 DAILYLAW 39766 (CAL)

ANTARA GUPTA v. KARAN GUPTA AND ANR

CO/2387/2026 · 2026-09-08

Hiranmay Bhattacharyya

body2026

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

Item- 7. sg 08-09-2026 Ct. 6 CO 2387 of 2026 Antara Gupta Versus Karan Gupta & Anr. Mr. Tanmoy Mukherjee Mr. Deepak Kumar Jain …for the petitioner Mr. Gouri Ghosal Mr. Soujanya Guha Majumder …for the opposite parties This application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is at the instance of the mother of a minor son and is directed against an order being No. 7 dated 7th July, 2026 passed by the learned District Judge, Howrah in Misc. Case No. 75 of 2026. By the order impugned, the application filed by the petitioner under Section 12 of the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890 stood rejected upon holding that the reliefs sought for cannot be granted. Mr. Mukherjee, learned advocate appearing for the petitioner draws the attention of the Court to the prayer made by the petitioner in the said application and submits that the petitioner has not sought for any direction upon the Passport Authority. The learned advocate appearing for the opposite parties draws the attention of this Court to the instruction contained in the attachment to the application for an U.S. passport in support of his contention that the pre-conditions for applying/renewal of a passport by the mother cannot be accepted by the concerned authority. In reply, Mr. Mukherjee draws attention of this Court to a communication dated 6th April, 2026 addressed to the petitioner to supply certain information. He submits that 2 the petitioner is ready and willing to comply with such requisition. Heard the learned advocates for the respective parties and perused the materials placed. In the application captioned as one under Section 12 of the Guardians and Wards Act, the petitioner sought for the following reliefs: “Under the circumstances, the petitioner humbly prays that your Honour may graciously be pleased to pass necessary order permitting the petitioner to apply and/or to present before the concerned US Passport Issuing Department as single parent as per the US Passport Norms in USA for reissuance of Passport of the minor son Lian Gupta who is US citizen by birth and/or to pass necessary order for protection of custody of petitioner in connection with his minor son Lian Gupta and/or may be pleased to pass other order/orders as deems fit and proper.” After going through the reliefs claimed in the said application as extracted hereinbefore, this Court finds that the petitioner only sought for permission to apply and/or to present before the U.S. Passport Issuing Department as single parent for re-issuance of the passport of the minor son who is US citizen by birth. However, such application was rejected only on the ground that Section 12 does not confer any power upon the Court to issue any direction upon the competent authority to issue or renew the passport of the minor. To the mind of this Court, the learned trial judge misconstrued the relief sought for by the petitioner in the said application. Only on such ground, this Court is inclined to interfere with the order impugned. Accordingly, the impugned order is set aside. The 3 application under Section 12 of the Guardian and Wards Act, 1890 stands restored to the file of the learned District Judge. At this stage, Mr. Mukherjee, the learned advocate appearing for the petitioner submits that the validity period of the application filed by the petitioner before the Passport Authority would expire after 6th October, 2026. The learned District Judge, Howrah is requested to fix an early date of hearing of the application under Section 12 of the Guardians and Wads Act, 1890 keeping in mind the validity period of the application. The learned District Judge is requested to dispose of the said application after affording an opportunity of hearing to the respective parties. Needless to mention that this Court has not entered into the merits of the claim and counter claim made by the respective parties in course of hearing of this application. All points are left open to be decided by the learned District Judge in accordance with law. This civil revisional application stands disposed of. Urgent photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be supplied to the parties upon compliance of all requisite formalities. (Hiranmay Bhattacharyya, J.)