Once again go thru from another perspective;
THE PASSPORTS ACT, 1967 [Act No. 15 of 1967 dated 24th. June, 1967]; 10 and more so sub sec;(3)
Judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Suresh Nanda (Supra) has been referred and relied upon in many cases..
Andhra High Court
K.Sowmya vs The Regional Passport Officer And ... on 16 August, 2016
It is the case of the petitioner that she filed Domestic Violence Case No.9 of 2012 against her husband/2nd respondent on the file of XI Metropolitan Magistrate Court, L.B.Nagar, R.R.District. The Court below, after considering the oral and documentary evidence adduced on either side, awarded an amount of Rs.20,00,000/- towards compensation to the petitioner and Rs.30,000/- per month towards maintenance against the husband/2nd respondent, by an order dated 09.12.2013. Aggrieved by the same, the husband/2nd respondent filed appeal before the Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge-cum-II Additional District and Sessions Judge, along with stay petition. Upon which, the II Additional Metropolitan Sessions Court partly allowed the appeal by staying the execution of the order for realization of compensation of Rs.20,00,000/- upon furnishing third party security, within a period of two weeks thereafter. As regards the maintenance and costs are concerned, no stay was granted by the appellate Court. However, the 2nd respondent failed to pay the same. When the 2nd respondent had not attended the Court proceedings and failed to comply the orders dated 09.12.2013, Non Bailable Warrant was issued against the 2nd respondent by the XI Metropolitan Magistrate on 14.03.2014 in Crl.M.P.No.502 of 2014 in DVC No.9 of 2012. Thereafter, the petitioner filed petition in SR No.5624 under Section 10 (3) (h) of the Passports Act for revocation/impounding the passport of the 2nd respondent. But the said petition was returned on the ground that the said petition is not maintainable as Passports Act, 1967 (for short the Act of 1967) has no application to the domestic violence cases under DVC Act.
As per Section 10(8) of the Act of 1967, an order of revocation under sub-section (7) may also be made by an appellate court or by the High Court when exercising its powers of revision. But in the present case, there is no conviction against 2nd respondent. However, non-Bailable Warrant was issued against him on 14.03.2014 but still 2nd respondent is not appearing, which is a serious matter and thus evading the arrest. In the instant case, since petitioners case falls under Section 10(3)(h) of the Act of 1967 as non-Bailable Warrant is pending against the 2nd respondent, it is for the 1st respondent to consider the case of the petitioner in terms of Section 10 (3) (h) of the Act and pass orders on the application of the petitioner. The Joint Secretary (CPV), Ministry of External Affairs issued Circular No.VI/401/1/1/2006, dated 04.06.2007 covering the issue. In the circumstances, the 1st respondent cannot direct the petitioner to obtain specific orders from the Court for impounding the passport of the 2nd respondent.
The 1st respondent has not properly applied his mind when serious issue was brought to his notice, abdicating his power. The counter filed by the respondent in D.Surendernath Reddys case also supports the petitioners case. However, the facts in D.Surendernath Reddys case and in the present case are different. Accordingly, letter No.30(454) Pol/2014, dated 20.10.2014 issued by the 1st respondent is set aside.
Following the principle laid down in the aforesaid decision of the Honble Apex Court, this writ petition is disposed of directing the 1st respondent authority to reconsider the application of the petitioner for impounding the passport of the 2nd respondent by taking into account Section 10(3)(h) of the Passports Act, 1967, pass appropriate orders, in accordance with the law, and communicate the same to the petitioner.