Husband's Passport Cannot Be Impounded Merely Because Wife Filed Many Cases Against Him: Supreme Court
The Court disposed of a Criminal Appeal of a husband against the Calcutta High Court's Judgment, dismissing the Criminal Revision of his authorized representative i.e., sister.
The Supreme Court in its recent Judgment, observed that an act of impounding the passport of a husband merely because his wife numerous cases against him, is ‘ex-facie’ illegal.
The Court directed the passport authorities to release the husband’s passport.
The Court was deciding a Criminal Appeal filed by a husband against the Judgment of the Calcutta High Court by which it dismissed Criminal Revision of his authorized representative i.e., his sister.
The two-Judge Bench comprising Justice Pankaj Mithal and Justice Sandeep Mehta held, “Before we conclude our discussion, we must note that the act of impounding the passport of the appellant by the concerned authorities of the Government of India was ex-facie illegal in the eyes of the law. In the present case, the appellant’s passport was impounded on the mere premise that the respondent has filed numerous cases before the various courts in India.”
The Bench took note of the fact that the husband’s inability to travel to India and appear in a Miscellaneous Case filed by his wife under Section 26 of the DV Act, stemmed from the impoundment of his passport, a circumstance beyond his control.
“The law regarding the impounding of a passport of an individual has been settled by this Court in the case of Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India and Anr.16, wherein it was held that the rules of natural justice must be followed before impounding a passport under Section 10(3) of the Passports Act, 1967”, it further noted.
AOR Ronak Karanpuria represented the Appellant while AOR Amrita Panda represented the Respondents.
Facts of the Case
The Appellant and the Respondent i.e., the husband and wife respectively, married in February 2018, moved to the USA, where the husband alleged continuous domestic abuse by his wife. Despite police interventions, the abuse persisted, culminating in the wife's arrest for second-degree assault. The couple returned to India, and the wife initiated multiple legal proceedings against the husband and his family. The husband's passport was impounded, and his mother filed a Complaint against the wife for physical and mental torture. The wife counter-filed a Domestic Violence Application. The husband, unable to appear in Court due to his passport being impounded, approached the Supreme Court after his Criminal Revision was dismissed by the High Court.
Reasoning
The Supreme Court in view of the facts and circumstances of the case, said, “The aforesaid facts give us the impression that there was hardly any cordiality or meaningful marital relationship that flowed from the marriage between the parties. It is evident that the relationship between the parties appears to be strained from the beginning and has further soured over the years.”
The Court further held that the Order of the JMFC directing the initiation of extradition proceedings against the husband as a consequence of his non-appearance, despite being aware of the fact of impounding of his passport is untenable and unsustainable in the eyes of the law.
The Court also took note of the following factors to be looked into while deciding the question of permanent alimony –
i. Status of the parties, social and financial.
ii. Reasonable needs of the wife and the dependent children.
iii. Parties’ individual qualifications and employment statuses.
iv. Independent income or assets owned by the party.
v. Standard of life enjoyed by the wife in the matrimonial home.
vi. Any employment sacrifices made for family responsibilities.
vii. Reasonable litigation costs for a non-working wife.
viii. Financial capacity of the husband, his income, maintenance obligations, and liabilities.
The Court observed that the wife was earning Rs. 50,000/- per month and the husband earned Rs. 8 lakhs per month in 2018 and that he would now be earning more than Rs. 10 lakhs per month.
“The appellant, in his rejoinder affidavit, admitted that while he was earning Rs. 8 lakh per month in 2018, however, at present, he is unemployed and is facing challenges in securing employment in India due to multiple cases filed by the respondent”, it also noted.
The Court was of the view that a one-time settlement as alimony for the wife would be a fair arrangement.
“… the act of impounding the appellant’s passport under Section 10 of the Passport Act, 1967, was carried out without granting the appellant an opportunity to be heard. This clear violation of the principles of natural justice renders the act of impounding the passport ex-facie illegal”, it concluded.
Accordingly, the Apex Court disposed of the Appeal, set aside the impugned Judgment, dissolved the marriage, closed the case against the husband and his family, directed the husband to pay Rs. 25 lakhs as permanent alimony to his wife, and directed the authorities to release his passport.
Cause Title- ABC v. XYZ (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 254)
Appearance:
Appellant: AOR Ronak Karanpuria, and Advocate Kapil Chandna.
Respondents: AORs Amrita Panda, Vishwa Pal Singh, Advocates Utkarsh Thapar, Nipun Joshi, Mukesh Kumar, Rahul Verma, Atul Mangala, Srikant Singh, and Varnit Sharma.
