2011 (5) TMI 1149 - HC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues involved: Revision against order granting permission to travel abroad, abuse of process of law, denial of permission based on family members being British passport holders and proclaimed offenders.

For the first issue, the petitioner filed a revision petition against the order granting permission to the respondent no. 2 to travel abroad. The petitioner alleged that the respondent no. 2's family members, including the husband and parents-in-law, were British passport holders and some were declared proclaimed offenders, raising concerns that allowing the respondent no. 2 to travel abroad might result in the entire family settling outside India. The learned Additional Sessions Judge upheld the permission granted by the Magistrate, stating that the property claimed by the respondent no. 2 was undervalued and insufficient to ensure her return. The Judge referred to various legal precedents and approved the Magistrate's decision.

Regarding the abuse of process of law issue, the petitioner filed a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. challenging the orders of both the Magistrate and the Additional Sessions Judge. The Court noted that the petitioner's attempt was essentially a second revision, which is not permissible under Section 397(2) Cr.P.C. The Court observed that the petitioner's objections seemed motivated by vendetta rather than genuine concerns. The Court emphasized that being a British passport holder, like the respondent no. 2, should not be a ground to deny travel permission, especially when she had roots in India, was employed, and held Indian citizenship as well.

The denial of permission based on family members being British passport holders and proclaimed offenders was addressed by the Court, highlighting that the respondent no. 2's situation was different from cases involving violations of statutory provisions like FERA or FEMA. The Court emphasized that the matter stemmed from a matrimonial dispute and should not be equated with white-collar crimes. The Court dismissed the petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C., stating that there was no merit for interference and clarified that the opinion expressed should not be construed as a judgment on the case's merits.