IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE THIRD DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA Writ Petition No : 15498 of 2009 Between: Mohammad Khaja-Moinuddin ..... PETITIONER AND The Regional Passport Officer, Hyderabad and others. .....RESPONDENTS Order: Questioning the action of respondent Nos.1 to 3 in not taking any steps for cancellation of the passport and US Viasas fraudulently obtained by respondent Nos.4 and 5, in spite of several complaints being made in this regard, the petitioner filed the present writ petition. The petitioner states that the marriage between him and the fourth respondent was performed in September, 2000 in a religious ceremony and out of their wedlock, they were blessed with two children. Thereafter, the fourth respondent started ill-treating the parents of the petitioner and in December, 2001 she came to USA by obtaining H1B Visa and joined him. He states that in US she had developed illicit intimacy with some other people and neglected him and his children. In the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, though the petitioner has narrated various events in detail with regard to the unpleasant incidents that had taken place between him and his wife, the fourth respondent, but those facts are not necessary for adjudicating the issue on hand. It is further stated that the fifth respondent, who is the brother of the fourth respondent, has fraudulently obtained ‘US F1 Student Visa’ by showing false bank account and false deposits. He states that though he made representation, dated 16.04.2007, to the first respondent, namely, the Regional Passport Officer, Hyderaad, bringing to his notice about the fraudulent acts done by the fourth and fifth respondents, no action has been taken so far in this regard. Hence, the present writ petition. When the matter came up for consideration on 31.07.2009, this Court directed the learned Additional Standing Counsel for Central Government, Sri S.S.Varma, who took notice for respondent Nos.1 and 2, to get instructions in the matter as to the steps taken by the respondent-authorities pursuant to the representation of the petitioner, dated 16.04.2007. Thereafter, the matter has undergone four adjournments and eventually, the first respondent-Regional Passport Officer filed counter in the matter. It is stated in the counter affidavit filed by the first respondent that pursuant to the representation made by the petitioner, a show-cause notice, dated 31.12.2008, was issued to the fourth respondent calling for her explanation, pursuant to which, the fourth respondent has even submitted her explanation, dated 25.01.2009, wherein it is stated that her husband, the petitioner herein, has filled up the application form and obtained her signatures, that she is a divorcee with two children and that the petitioner was charged and convicted for third degree assault by the criminal Court of New York City, that he was married twice before and both the marriages ended in divorce and to take revenge, he filed the present petition. It is also stated in the counter that even a clear report was received from the Superintendent of Police, Nizamabad, where no suppression regarding the marital status was reported. It is therefore stated that the there is no need to impound the passport issued in favour of the fourth respondent. A reply affidavit has been filed by the petitioner, running into number of pages, reiterating the averments made in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition and narrating various facts, which are not necessary for adjudicating the issue on hand. Heard the learned counsel on record at length and perused the material on record, including Xerox copy of the application, dated 30.08.2000, submitted by the fourth respondent while applying for passport. In view of the nature of order to be passed, this Court is of the opinion that there is no need to issue notice to the unofficial respondents. The main contention of the petitioner in this writ petition is that the fourth respondent has obtained passport fraudulently, by suppressing her marital status. Here it is to be noted that according to the petitioner himself, marriage between him and the fourth respondent was performed in September, 2000, whereas the application for passport was made by the fourth respondent on 30.08.2000, i.e., prior to their marriage. Therefore, it cannot be said that the fourth respondent has obtained the passport by suppressing her marital status. It is also the contention of the petitioner that on 29.09.2000 when the fourth respondent requested the District Collector, Nizamabad, to issue Verification Certificate/Report to obtain passport to go to Umra (a pilgrimage place) immediately, she did not state anything about her marital status. I am unable to accept the said contention because it is quite evident from the letter dated 29.09.2000 that the fourth respondent has only requested for Verification Certificate/Report to enable her to get passport, and she did no make any fresh application seeking passport. Therefore, I am of the opinion that there is no suppression by the fourth respondent of her marital status and other details. Apart from that, a perusal of the explanation, dated 25.01.2009, submitted by the fourth respondent to the show-cause notice issued by the first respondent-Regional Passport Officer, makes it clear that she is a divorcee with two children and that there are serious family disputes between her and the petitioner, and that the petitioner was even convicted for third degree assault against her by the criminal Court of New York City. Here, it is also to be noted that in the explanation, the fourth respondent has categorically stated that her husband, Sri Mohammed Khaja Moinuddin, the petitioner himself, had filled up the application form for passport and obtained her signature. The relevant paras are as under: “As soon as I finished my masters in computer application an unexpected marriage proposal lead to marriage within a week’s time, as the marriage got fixed we (me & my family) got busy in marriage preparations without knowing the evil intentions of my husband and in laws we rushed the marriage as demanded by them. Soon after my marriage my husband filled up my passport application form and asked me to sign them since I was not aware of his evil intentions I trusted him and signed the form. The same form was submitted under tatkal scheme.” In view of the material available on record and especially in view of the nature of allegations and the counter allegations made by the petitioner and the fourth respondent, it can be presumed that there are serious family disputes prevailing between them, which are civil in nature. When there are serious disputes between the spouses, especially after divorce, there is every likelihood of making allegations against each other and the writ Court cannot be converted into a civil Court to settle the civil disputes. Be that as it may, a very perusal of the application submitted by the fourth respondent on 30.08.2000 makes it clear that she was not married at that time and therefore, it can safely be concluded that she has not suppressed about her marital status while applying for the passport. Insofar as the contention of the petitioner that the fourth and fifth respondents have fraudulently obtained United States Visas is concerned, the same is not within the purview of this Court and therefore, this Court cannot adjudicate upon the said issue. The remedy of the petitioner is to approach the appropriate forum. Across the Bar, it is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the father of the fourth respondent has filed various criminal cases against the petitioner, without any fault of his, which is causing lot of mental agony and sufferance. He, therefore, sought to summon the fourth respondent. If that be so, it is always open to the petitioner to file appropriate application before the Court concerned seeking appropriate orders and the petitioner cannot invoke the writ jurisdiction to settle the disputes between him and his divorced wife. For the foregoing reasons, I see no reason to entertain the writ petition. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed, at the admission stage. No costs. ___________________ N.V. RAMANA, J. Date: 03.12.2009 VGB