The Madras High Court has delivered a striking rebuke to outdated bureaucratic attitudes, ruling that a married woman doesn’t need her husband’s permission—or his signature—to apply for a passport.
In a case brought by J Revathy, whose application was stalled by the Regional Passport Office in Chennai for lack of her estranged husband’s signature, the Court didn’t mince words. Justice N Anand Venkatesh made it clear: marriage doesn’t dissolve a woman’s identity.
“The petitioner does not lose her individuality after marrying the said Mohanakrishnan,” the judge declared. “Insisting on a husband’s permission is not only archaic but a display of male supremacism.”
Revathy, married in 2023 and now a mother, found herself entangled in a bureaucratic wall when her passport request was denied because of missing consent from a man currently seeking divorce from her. The Court, unamused by this reasoning, said the conduct reflected a mindset that treats married women as if they are “chattel belonging to the husband.”
Justice Venkatesh emphasized that such practices contradict the vision of an equal society and have no place in institutions meant to serve citizens, not reassert patriarchal dominance.
“The application has to be processed independently,” he ruled. “It is shocking that in 2025, a government office demands a husband’s signature to let a woman exercise her rights.”
The Court ordered that Revathy’s application be processed within four weeks, so long as all standard procedures are fulfilled—without the husband’s ink or blessing.
The case has struck a chord as another example of the judiciary confronting embedded gender bias in civil administration, offering a sharp reminder: wives are not wards.
