all Forms of Discrimination Against Women has provided that, state parties shall grant women equal rights with men to acquire citizenship and Nepal is a state party to that convention and therefore, it is the obligation of the state to comply with that convention. Article 9(1) of the Constitution of the Kingdom of Nepal, 1990 and Section 3 of Nepal Citizenship Act, 1963 have provided that a person shall be deemed to be the citizens of Nepal by descent if his or her father or mother was a citizen of Nepal at his or her birth. Therefore, it is the matter of choice of a woman to obtain the citizenship either from the name of her father or her husband; however, women have been deprived from this right in practice. has filed application for obtaining citizenship by descent from the name of either or mother has been returned from this Kirtipur Municipality. Since the writ petitioner Nakkali Maharjan has mentioned her husband’s name in the application form but she had not submitted the certificate substantiating her marital relationship and therefore, the recommendation has not been provided as per her request. If the recommendation is requested for obtaining citizenship by descent from the name of one’s father or mother there is no question of rejecting the application without making recommendation. Therefore, the writ petition should be quashed. The Government of Nepal, Ministry of Home Affairs in its written response has stated that the Ministry has not done any act violating any of the fundamental right of the petitioner provided by the constitution and therefore, the writ petition should be quashed. Therefore, I it is requested to issue the writ of Mandamus in the name of Kirtipur Municipality to provide recommendation for citizenship as per the request of the petitioner Nakkali Maharjan along with the interpretation made for other such women residing in the country suffering from similar problem. It is stated in the writ petition filed dated 2063/4/22 (August 7, 2006). From the writ petition filed by the petitioner it has been obvious that she has not filed application to this office for obtaining citizenship certificate and therefore this office has not done any act infringing the fundamental right of the petitioner. Citizenship certificate will be provided to married women upon submitting an application for obtaining citizenship by descent mentioning the name of either father or husband. Thus, the writ petition filed by making this office as respondent should be quashed. It is stated in the written response submitted by District Administration Office Kathmandu. In the order of this court dated 2063/5/1 (August 17, 2006) it is stated that, the respondents shall be required to submit their written response within 15 days excluding the time necessary for the journey explaining what has happened in this case? Why should the order as sought by the petitioner not be issued? The writ petition shall be presented for hearing as per the rule. In the written response submitted on behalf of the Office of the Prime Minister and Council of Ministers it is stated that the Constitution of the Kingdom of Nepal, 1990 and Citizenship Act, 1963 have not deprived the petitioner from obtaining citizenship certificate from the name of her father. No decision has been taken from this office regarding whether a married woman should be allowed to obtain the citizenship from the name of her father or her husband. The writ petition filed making respondent to this office should be quashed. The writ petition filed based on hunch without mentioning which of the constitutional or legal right of the petitioner has been violated from which of the act of this Ministry and therefore, should be quashed. It is stated in the written response submitted by Government of Nepal, Ministry of Women, Children and Social Welfare. In this writ petition presented before the bench as per the rule for hearing, the learned advocates representing the petitioners including Sapana Malla Pradhan, Meera Dhungana, Ratna Kaji Shrestha, and Sabin Shrestha argued that compelling women to obtain citizenship based on marital status is against the constitution and law. A married woman has right to self determination of making choice of whether to obtain citizenship certificate from the name of her father or husband. Therefore, the writ of mandamus should be issued in the name of Kirtipur Municipality which denied for making recommendation to the applicant Nakkali Maharjan for obtaining citizenship from the name of her father to make recommendation thereof as per the request of the applicant. In the written response submitted on behalf of the Ministry of Law, Justice and Parliamentary Affairs it is stated that in regard to the matter of obtaining citizenship by a married daughter on behalf of her father, she can obtain the citizenship certificate from the name of her husband if he is a Nepali citizen. If the husband is a foreigner she can obtain citizenship certificate pursuant to Section 9(6) of Nepal Citizenship Act, 1963 and Rule 4(3) of Citizenship Rules, 2049 (1993). Therefore, the plea of the writ petitioner is unreasonable and unjustifiable. Therefore, the writ petition should be quashed. In the written response the submitted on behalf of Kirtipur Municipality it is stated that, no application of any of the resident of this municipality who Learned Deputy Government Attorney Mr. Brajesh Pyakurel representing on behalf of the Government 14 Compilation of Selected Decisions of Supreme Court on CITIZENSHIP and BIRTH REGISTRATION