Disposed

Teena Sali v. the Union of India

Kerala HC1 Jun 2016WP(C)/2345/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court disposed of a writ petition directing the Regional Passport Officer to consider the petitioner's application for impounding her husband's passport after receiving a police report, with notice to the husband.

What did the court decide?

Directing the Second Respondent to consider and pass orders on the Ext.P7 application on receipt of the police report, as expeditiously as possible, after notice to the fifth respondent.

Teena Sali Vs the Union of India — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Kerala HC (2016)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.B.SURESH KUMAR

¶4

WEDNESDAY, THE 1ST DAY OF JUNE 2016/11TH JYAISHTA, 1938

¶5

WP(C).No. 2345 of 2016 (P)

¶6

PETITIONER(S):

¶7

TEENA SALI, AGED 32 YEARS, W/O.SALI ANTONY, PRESENTLY RESIDING AT CHALICHAN HOUSE, ST.JOHN PATTOM, KOCHI 682 001.

¶8

BY ADVS.SRI.R.MANOJ SMT.SINDHU MANOJ

¶9

RESPONDENT(S):

¶10

1. THE UNION OF INDIA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF EXTERNAL AFFAIRS, NEW DELHI 110001.

¶11

2. THE REGINAL PASSPORT OFFICER, ERNAKULM 682 031.

¶12

3. THE COMMISSIONER OF POLICE, ERNAKULAM 682 031.

¶13

4. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, KANNAMALI POLICE STATION, FORT KOCHI 682 002.

¶14

5. SALI ANTONY,

¶15

S/O.DEVASSYKUTY, THAIPATTU HOUSE, KANNAMALI PO, KOCHI 682 008.

¶16

R1-R2 BY ADV. SRI.N.NAGARESH, ASSISTANT SOLICITOR GENERAL R3-4 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.JOSEPH GEORGE

¶17

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 01-06-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶18

¶19

WP(C).No. 2345 of 2016 (P)

¶20

APPENDIX

¶21

PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS

¶22

P1TRUE THE MARRIAGE CERTIFICATE EVIDENCING THE MARRIAGE BETWEEN THE PETITIONER AND THE 5TH RESPONDENT

¶23

P2TRUE OCPY OF THE FIR IN CRIME NO.783/2015 OF THE KANNAMMALI POLICE STATION

¶24

P3TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY THE MARRIAGE OFFICER, ANNAMANADA SUB REGISTRY EVIDENCING THE MARRIAGE BETWEEN THE 4TH RESPONDENT AND ARATHI.S.NAIR

¶25

P4TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT BEARING NO.CRL.M.P.2888/2015 ON THE FILES OF THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS -I, KOCHI DATED 30.11.2015

¶26

P5TRUE OCPY OF THE FINAL REPORT NUMBERED AS C.C.2079/15 OF THE JUDCIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS -I, KOCHI DATED 19.12.2015

¶27

P6TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION FOR MAINTENANCE FILED BY THE PETITONER BEFORE THE FAMILY COURT, ERNAKULAM

¶28

P7TRUE COPY OF HTE REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 3RD RESPONDENT DATED 11.1.2016

¶29

P8TRUE COPY OF THE FINAL REPORT IN CC NO.2079/2015 ON THE FILES OF THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS-1, KOCHI.

¶30

RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS

NIL.

/ TRUE COPY /

P.S. TO JUDGE

P.B.SURESH KUMAR, J.

¶36

W.P.(C)No.2345 of 2016

¶37

Dated this the 1^st day of June, 2016

¶38

JUDGMENT

¶39

Ext.P7 is an application filed by the petitioner before

¶40

the second respondent for impounding the passport of the fifth respondent who is none other than the husband of the petitioner. The limited prayer made by the learned counsel for the petitioner, when this matter was taken up for admission, is for a direction to the second respondent to consider Ext.P7 application within a time frame.

¶41

A statement has been filed on behalf of respondents 1 and 2. Paragraphs 4 and 5 of the said statement read thus:

¶42

“4) As such, the complaint of the petitioner has been forwarded to the District Police Chief, Ernakulam City, as per letter No.COCB00391108 dated

¶43

W.P.(C)No.2345 of 2016

¶44

¶45

02.02.2016, for conducting a discrete enquiry in the matter and report to the 2^nd respondent so as to take further necessary action in the matter. However, no reply has been received so far.

¶46

Unless and until a report is received from the Police Authorities or a direction is issued by a competent court, the impounding procedure on the passport of Shri Sali Antony cannot be initiated under Section 10 (3)(e) of Passport Act 1967, on the basis of a private complaint.”

¶47

In the light of the stand taken by the second respondent, the writ petition is disposed of directing the second respondent to consider and pass orders on Ext.P7 application on receipt of the report sought from the police, as expeditiously as possible, after notice to the fifth respondent.

¶48

Sd/-

¶49

P.B.SURESH KUMAR, JUDGE.

¶50

smm

Teena Sali v. the Union of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Teena Sali v. the Union of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

C.I.Varghese Vs the Divisional Forest Officer and Others

Rasiya N.K Vs the Regional Manager

P.R.Geetha Vs State of Kerala

Mary Mathew Vs the General Manager

Saji George Vs State of Kerala

Mariyam Beevi @ Mariumma Vs State of Kerala