Daily Archives: March 2, 2018

Madras HC Bench rules that court or police have no such power to impound and hold passports | LatesLaws . com

Bench ruled that the court also had no such power to impound the passport.


Madras High Court has issued a set of guidelines to be followed by police, lower courts and passport authorities in the matter of impounding passports.

Though the police are entitled to seizing a passport under Section 104 of the CrPC, they have no authority to keep it in their custody.

In turn, as soon as possible, the passport must be produced before the court concerned without any unreasonable delay, Justice M V Muralidharan said on February 26 last.

The judge was allowing a revision petition from Dr C Ramesh Babu, an orthopaedic surgeon, seeking return of his passport impounded by police and deposited with a lower court in connection with a criminal case.

The judge said that the court also had no such power to impound the passport. However, the duty of the court is to direct the passport authority to commence the proceedings for impounding passport by strictly adhering to the provision under Section 10(3) of the Passports Act as the same is a special enactment.

In turn, the passport authority is to initiate due process to impound the passport after affording opportunity duly to the holder of the passport as it involves the right to free movement as guaranteed in the Constitution. After considering the necessity pertaining to facts and circumstances of each case, the passport authority, by giving detailed reasons, may take any decision on either side by applying the mind.
Coming back to the case on hand, the judge observed that the petitioner used to travel abroad due to his profession. Further, his son is also pursuing his higher studies in London. “Therefore this court considers that the petitioner’s request is genuine. In view of the discussion above, I have no hesitation to allow this criminal revision,” the judge said and accordingly allowed it.





One more Alpha wants a divorce and wants it quick ! Omar Abdullah Seeks Divorce, Wants To Re-Marry;

01 March 2018NationalNews Analysis

Omar Abdullah Seeks Divorce, Wants To Re-Marry; Delhi High Court Asks Estranged Wife To Reply

File Photo

The Delhi High Court today sought the response of Payal Abdullah, the estranged wife of former Jammu and Kashmir Chief Minister Omar Abdullah, on his plea seeking divorce on the ground that their marriage has broken down irretrievably and he wants to get re-married.

A bench of Justices Siddharth Mridul and Deepa Sharma issued notice to Payal asking her to file a reply before the next date of hearing on April 23.

The court also sought her stand on an application moved by Omar seeking early hearing in the matter.

Advocate Malavika Rajkotia, appearing for Omar, claimed that the court had on an earlier date asked if the parties wanted to get married again. She replied in affirmative about Omar’s intent, saying “I do”.

The application by Omar seeking grant of divorce has been moved in his petition challenging a trial court decision of August 30, 2016 dismissing his plea for divorce. He has contended that their marriage has “irretrievably broken down”.

The trial court had held that he had failed to prove irretrievable breakdown of the marriage.

It had also said that Omar could not prove his claims of “cruelty” or “desertion” which were the grounds alleged by him for grant of decree of divorce.

In his appeal against the trial court order, Omar had claimed that his marriage had broken down irretrievably and he has not enjoyed conjugal relationship since 2007 and the couple, married on September 1, 1994, were living separately since 2009. The couple have two sons who are staying with their mother.





after words of wisdom, Hon SC Judge orders sick jobless husband to pay 5000 every hearing !!

Monthly maintenance and that too at interim stage is the worst millstone around men’s neck. In yet another case exemplifying this sad situation, a sick and jobless husband was told that HE HAS TO WORK and he HAS to earn, so that he can continue to pay his wife !! The poor fella has to pay 5000 per month in addition to fighting multiple cases and taking care of his kids

You Say You’re a Homemaker But Where’s the Home, SC Asks Unemployed Husband

The bench ordered for consolidation of all the cases between the warring couple and directed the judge-in-charge to ensure cases are not scattered over various courts.

Utkarsh Anand | CNN-News18

Updated:February 28, 2018, 9:01 AM IST

You Say You're a Homemaker But Where's the Home, SC Asks Unemployed Husband

File image of Supreme Court. (Image: PTI)

New Delhi: “You say you are a homemaker but where is the home to make?” the Supreme Court asked a man while hearing a bunch of matrimonial dispute cases.

A bench headed by Justice Kurian Joseph was adjudicating the dispute relating to multiple litigation between the estranged couple when it asked the husband about what he does for a living. “I am a homemaker,” said the man.

“You say you are a homemaker but where is the home to make? You have been fighting with your wife for years and children are also suffering. Where is the home?” Justice Joseph asked him.

At this, the man cut a sorry figure, saying he has tried a lot but it looked very difficult to reconcile with the wife. Justice Joseph then reminded the husband that he could not remain a homemaker anymore.

“You will have to work…earn. You have to maintain your wife, two children and then conduct four cases. You must start working now,” the judge said.

The man replied that he had undergone surgeries and had a severe medical condition.

“That is okay but you cannot afford not to work. You even have the interim custody of two children. So do whatever work comes your way and earn,” Justice Joseph said.

The wife, who was also present in the Court, expressed her difficulties in fighting different cases at different places in Kerala.

Acknowledging her problems, the Court said that it would be better for both the parties if all cases, which include custody battle, divorce, alimony and cruelty, should be heard on the same day in the same court premises.

The bench then ordered for consolidation of all the cases between the warring couple and directed the judge-in-charge to ensure cases are not scattered over various courts.

It also asked the husband to pay Rs 5,000 for transportation and other allowances to the estranged wife for every date of hearing.