IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.GIRI FRIDAY, THE 19TH SEPTEMBER 2008 / 28TH BHADRA 1930 WP(C).No. 19713 of 2008(V) -------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------ SUNIL KUMAR KOTTARATHIL CHANDRASEKHARAN PILLAI, S/O.CHANDRASEKHARAN PILLAI, AGED 37 YEARS, WORKING AT DUBAI EMIRATES, KOTTARATHIL HOUSE, H.NO.34/119, EDAPPALLY P.O., KOCHI-24 KANAYANNUR TALUK, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.P.M.ZIRAJ RESPONDENT: ------------- THE REGIONAL PASSPORT OFFICER, KOCHI. BY ADV. SRI.P.PARAMESWARAN NAIR,ASST.SOLICITOR FOR R THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 19/09/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: V.GIRI, J ------------------- W.P.(C).19713/2008 -------------------- Dated this the 19th day of September, 2008 JUDGMENT Petitioner is the holder of an Indian passport bearing No.E5972841 dated 13.11.2003. Petitioner was working for Dubai Emirates at the airport at Dubai, UAE. He submits that he came to India on leave in January, 2008 and lost his passport on 26.1.2008 at Keerthi Nagar Juncition, Elamakkara. Enquiries to find out his passport proved futile. A complaint was lodged with Kalamassery police and thereupon, the petitioner submitted Ext.P2 application for a duplicate passport. There is apparently reluctance on the part of the Department in issuing a duplicate passport on the premise that petitioner’s wife has filed an application for divorce before the Family Court, Ernakulam. There are proceedings for maintenance by the petitioner as also for recovery of certain money and ornaments alleged to have been handed over to the petitioner at the time of the marriage. This fact is taken note of for not issuing a duplicate copy of the passport to the petitioner. W.P.(C).19713/2008 2 2. I heard learned Standing Counsel for the respondent also. 3. Apparently, the reasons which now seem to weigh with the respondent for not issuing a duplicate copy of the passport to the petitioner are not those which are contemplated by Section 6 of the Passports Act, 1967. I am unable to accept the submission of the learned counsel for the respondent that if there is a refusal or inability on the part of the petitioner to pay the maintenance to his wife in spite of an order that might be passed by the Court, he would face penal consequences and therefore, that is also a fact which will fall under Section 6(2)(e) of the Act. Proceedings for maintenance at the instance of wife against the husband are not contemplated by Section 6(2)(f) of the Act. 4. In the result, writ petition is disposed of directing the first respondent to pass orders on the petitioner’s W.P.(C).19713/2008 3 application for issuance of duplicate passport. But it is made clear that if there is a valid order from a Court, restraining the travel of the petitioner and compelling his personal appearance, then, the passport Officer is obliged to take note of it and impose suitable conditions in the matter of petitioner's travel using the passport. In the circumstances, first respondent shall, before actually handing over the duplicate copy of the passport to the petitioner, make an intimation in that regard to the Family Court, Ernakulam, wherein proceedings are pending against the petitioner. 5. In the facts and circumstances of the case, petitioner shall produce a copy of the judgment before the Family Court, Ernakulam. First respondent shall take steps to issue a duplicate copy of the passport to the petitioner, only after the production of proof of the said fact before him by the petitioner. Petitioner shall produce a copy of the judgment before the Family Court within one week from today and on production of proof W.P.(C).19713/2008 4 by the petitioner that he has produced copy of the judgment before the first respondent, first respondent shall proceed to take steps on the application and do the needful within 15 days thereafter. V.GIRI, Judge mrcs