London: a woman from India has become the winner in a high court case in the United Kingdom by being granted a passport of Britain on the basis of the British citizenship of her father. The daughter of a Deelavathi Bondada made a request for a passport of Britain from the United Kingdom home office in order to run away from a marriage that was abusive in India.

However, immigration authorities in the United Kingdom refused to grant her request on the basis of suspicions that they had with regards to her paternity. A judge in Britain has now decided that those suspicions were not tenable and the 45 years old national of Britain has been granted citizenship based on her descent. A request to make a ruling on the argument between Bondada and the Home Office was asked of Justice Walker. Bondada was given birth to in 1969 in India two years after Chandraiah her father turned into a citizen of Britain.

The judge made his ruling by stating that by descent she was a citizen of Britain and as a result was entitled to possess a passport of Britain. The Home Office’s decision to refuse her one in October 2013 was earlier this week quashed by the ruling. Walker stated that officials of government who had raised objections to the claim by Deelavathi did not consider DNA evidence which was compelling.

He stated further that the speculation which was not supported about Ganikamma her mother who was presently 86 years old and had once been with a lover secretly that turned out to be the father of Deelavathi was too far-fetched and very absurd. In his written ruling, the judge had stated that it was a possibility that was not real, not to talk of a possibility of such a situation which would make the court to think of a search that Deelavathi had not revealed in all probability balance that her father was Chandraiah.

He continued by stating that in this stance the result was to effectively make an accusation with regards to the mother of Deelavathi lying for over 60 years about her children’s patronage. The Secretary of the Home Office accepted the evidence of the DNA at a very late stage in the present proceedings. In spite of this, when the rejection was made by the claim on Deelavathi, the stance that had been made on the home secretary’s behalf has continued to make the same accusation effectively without a shred of evidence in its support. In this regards, the conduct of the government of the United Kingdom was grotesque.

According to the judge, the solicitors who were the Home Office’s representatives were not to be held liable but had been asked to offer their defense in a position that was impossible. Walker stated that the family of Deelavathi stated that she had been given birth to in Nagullanka a village that was close to Chennai. He had done some analysis to the issues which were crucial with regards to the marital status of her parents and her date of birth prior to his drawing his conclusion that a decision to deny her a passport must be declared as invalid.