Ajith Nayak vs Shreelatha Nayak

K.N. Phaneendra, J.—Heard the learned counsel for petitioner. The respondent in person present and submitted her arguments.

The records disclose that respondent filed a petition before the Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bangalore Rural District, Mangalore in C. Misc. No. 75/2010 against the respondent u/s 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 making several grounds for her relief. The trial court not only passed the order granting interim maintenance at Rs. 2,500/- per month but also passed an order on the application filed by the petitioner directing the respondent to surrender his passport before the Court solely on the ground that the present petitioner has not filed any objections to the said application. The said order of the learned Magistrate was challenged before the II Addl. Sessions and Special Judge, FTC-III, Bangalore in Crl. Appeal No. 45/2013. After hearing both the parties the said order passed by the learned Magistrate has been modified to the effect that the present petitioner (husband)-Ajith Nayak has to surrender his passport within 15 days from the date of order of the appellate court before the trial court and trial court is directed to take custody of the passport of Ajith Nayak and further the trial court is also directed to consider the application of Ajith Nayak permitting him to go to foreign countries as and when required only for limited period without obstructing the court proceedings. The orders of both the trial court and appellate court are called in question before this court in this petition.

The learned counsel for petitioner strenuously submitted that the petitioner is gainfully employed in IBM Company and often he has to go to foreign countries to obey the orders of the company, if pass port is seized he may loose his job and in that event he will be put to great inconvenience and injustice.

Per contra, the respondent Smt. Shreelatha Nayak submitted before court that the petitioner has harassed her like anything and he made her life miserable. He has not attended court regularly. Therefore, it made her inevitable to make such application before trial court. Accordingly, she supported the orders of the trial court and as well as appellate court.

After hearing the arguments of both sides and on perusal of the orders of the trial court and as well as appellate court, it is seen from the orders and as well as submissions made before the courts below, it is stated that the petitioner has no intention to go to foreign countries and settle there itself and he has also no intention to avoid proceedings filed against him by his wife. Further, the petitioner under took that he will not obstruct court proceedings and he will not misuse the liberty given to him by the court.

On perusal of the above said materials on record it is clear that if the pass port of the petitioner is seized by the court it would inevitably cause inconvenience to the petitioner, because as it is mentioned that he is gainfully employed in IBM Company and he cannot expect at what circumstance and what time company would direct him to go to foreign country in connection with the work of the company. Therefore, if the pass port is seized and direction is issued to him that on every occasion he has to make an application seeking release of the pass port and attend work in the foreign country and come back and surrender pass port it would definitely create hardship and inconvenience to him.

The sole object of seizing pass port by the trial court and appellate court is to see that petitioner should attend the court as and when required by the court and also assist the court in disposing of the matter at the earlier. On putting reasonable conditions on the petitioner by modifying the order of the trial court and appellate court, in my opinion, it would meet the ends of justice. Therefore, I direct the trial court to release the pass port in favour of the petitioner if already surrendered or not to insist for surrender of the passport if not yet surrendered, subject to the condition that petitioner has to intimate the court, as and when he proposed to leave the country to foreign country and he must specifically mention that when he is actually leaving the country, to which country and on what order of the company and that when he is coming back to India. Thereafter, the petitioner shall also appear before court, as and when required or directed by the trial court in order to assist the court for disposal of the case and he shall not misuse the release of pass port with a view to permanently settle in the foreign country. In the event of the respondent suspect that petitioner may misuse the release of pass port at any future stage the respondent is at liberty to make appropriate application before the trial court. With these observation, I think, the petition is disposed of both the parties would not suffer any inconvenience or injustice.

Therefore, petition is allowed in part. The orders of the trial court and appellate court directing the petitioner for surrendering of his pass port or seizing of pass port are hereby set aside. However, petitioner herein is directed to intimate the court as and when he would like to leave the country with specific particulars of the date of leaving country and also the date of coming back to India and also the purpose of visiting the foreign country with the order of the company. The petitioner shall also attend the court as and when required or directed by the trial court and also assist the court for disposal of the case at the earliest. The respondent is also directed to cooperate with the court for early disposal of the case. Further, the trial court is also hereby directed to expedite the matter and dispose of the same on merits as expeditiously as possible.