Rajindar Sachar, J.

( 1 ) THIS petition under Arh cle 226 of the Constitution of India raises a question of the interpretation of the Passports Act, 1967 (herein called the Act ).

( 2 ) PETITIONER No. 1 married respondent No. 3 somotirnes in February, 1962. After marriage the husband respondent No. 3 went tousa. Petitioner No. 1 also went and statyed with her husband for about six months there Subsequently petitioner No. 1 came back to India and adaughter (petitioner No. 2)was born to her in 1963 Respondent No. 3, husband continued to live in USA. . till 1970 when he came to India,

( 3 ) ON 15th February, 1971 petitioner No. 1 obtained order under Section 488 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter to be called the code) wherein she was awarded maintenance at the rate of Rs. 500p. m being Rs. 350. 00 for petitioner No. 1 and Rs 150. 00 for the petitioner No. 2 This order, was confirmed by the magistrate on 23rd October, 1971.

( 4 ) RESPONDENT No 3 holds passport. Section 10 (3) (e) and (h) of the Act amongt others provide that the passport authority may impound or cause to be impounded or revoke a passport or travel document :

(E) If proceedings in respect of an offence alleged to have been committed by the holder of the passport or travel document are pending before a criminal court in India ;

(H)IF itis brought to the notice of the passport authority that a warrant or summons for the appearance, or a warrant for the arrest, of a holder, of the passport or travel document has beenissued by a court under any law for. the time being in force or if any law for the time being in force or if any order prohibiting the departure from India of the holder of ths passport or other travel document has been made by any such court and the possport authority is satisfied that a warrant or summons has been so issued or an order has been so made.

( 5 ) IN January, 1971 the petitioner. No I reported to the passport authorities that respondent No. 3 who was in India and against whom summons had been issued by Mr. I. K. Sharma, Judicial Magistrate under section 488 was likely to go away and his passport be impounded. The Regional Passport Officer respondent No. 2, thereupon impounded his passport and refused to him further passport facilities under Section 10 (3) (e) and (h) of the Act. Subsequently Respondent]no. 1, Union of India, Ministry of External Affairs and respondent No. 2, on being moved by respondent No. 3 took the view that proceedings under Section 488 Criminal Procedure Code are not proceedings in respect of an offence under Section 10 (3) (e) of the Act before the Criminal Court audit was decided to restore the facilities to respondent No. 3 and the petitioner was accordingly informed by the Under Secretary, Ministry of External Affairs, by its letter dated 14th March, 1972

( 6 ) IT appears that the petitioner No. 1 had also filed a criminal complaint under Section 506 Indian Penal Code in or about July, 1972 against respondent No. 3 wherein the summons had been issued by the Jujicial Magistrate, Ddhi. The passport authorities again withheld the passport of respondent No. 3 as criminal proceedings were pending in respect of an offence before the criminal court. It may bs mentioned that the criminal complaint filed by the petitioner has been dismissed by the magistrate on 10th January,. 1974. But prior to that the petitioner No. 7 had filed this- writ petition in May, 1973 seeking a mandanus directing respondent No. 1 and respondent No. 2 not to issue a passport to respondent No. 3 :and to impound to same a it had been issued.

( 7 ) IT is common case that the petitioner had earlier moved an application under Section 488 (3) of the Code For enforcement of the" order of maintenance awarded to her. Summons had been issued to respondent No. 3, who paid the arrears up March, 1972. It is also admitted that the arrears of maintenance only upto March, 1972 have been paid by respondent No. 3. Subsequently petitioner has been moving vari

Click Here to Read the rest of this document