Mr. Harinder Singh Sidhu, J.:- By filing the present petition, Daler Singh – petitioner has sought direction to respondents No.1 and 2 to issue him a passport, which has been withheld on the complaint made by respondent No.3.

2. The brief facts, as put forth by the petitioner, are that he was married with one Sandeep Kaur on 2.6.2009. He has been living in Italy for the last more than seven years and had been visiting India very often. On 23.3.2015, when he came to India and informed his wife that he has come to take her and their son to Italy, an argument took place between them. Sandeep Kaur left the house of the petitioner and also took away his passport bearing No.H-0805464, which was issued to him from Milan (Italy). She also made complaints to different police authorities as also to the NRI Wing, Phase VII, Mohali to lodge an FIR against the petitioner on general allegations of dowry. Despite best efforts on the part of the petitioner, the matter could not be resolved amicably.

3. The petitioner gave information to the Punjab Police about his missing passport (Annexure P-1) and also applied for re-issue of the same before respondents No.1 and 2 on 11.4.2015 (Annexure P-2). He also filed the requisite affidavit dated 7.4.2015 (Annexure P-3) regarding his missing passport, wherein, he mentioned that it was issued from Italy and has been lost in his house on 7.4.2015. He requested the authorities to re-issue the passport.

4. On 25.5.2015, on enquiry, the petitioner came to know that respondents No.1 and 2 have not re-issued his passport because of the application made by respondent No.3 stating that an inquiry is pending against the petitioner on the complaint of his wife.

5. In the reply filed on behalf of respondents No.1 to 3, it has been stated that while applying for re-issue of the passport, in the column of spouse, the petitioner has filled the name of ‘Gurwinder Kaur’, while marital status was filled up as ‘divorcee’. It is further stated that adverse police verification report has been received from respondent No.4, wherein, it is mentioned that the petitioner is married to Sandeep Kaur and in the absence of a correct mention of the spouse name, passport facility was not recommended. The reply further states that a false explanation has been given by the petitioner that he had been living with Sandeep Kaur, but not legally divorced from the earlier wife. The second police verification report received from respondent No.4 further revealed that court case FIR No.27.5.2015 under Sections 406, 420, 494, 498-A read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, registered at Police Station NRI Patiala is pending against the petitioner. It has been stated that as and when a clear police verification report is received from respondent No. 4, the case of the petitioner would be reconsidered.

I have heard Learned counsel for the parties.

6. The contention on behalf of the petitioner is that merely on account of pendency of an FIR in a matrimonial dispute, the respondents are not justified to withheld his passport. Reliance has been placed on Abhijit Sen vs. Superintendent (Administration) Regional Passport Officer, Kolkata and others, 2004(2) AICLR 893, CWP No.8902 of 2012 titled Tarsem Singh vs. Union of India and others, decided on 15.01.2014 and CWP No.24358 of 2014 titled Surinder Pal Singh vs. Union of India and others decided on 13.08.2015.

7. The right to travel abroad has been recognized as a fundamental right by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. Accordingly only such restrictions can be imposed thereon as are authorized by law.

8. The grounds for refusal of passports and travel documents are specified in the Passports Act, 1967. The relevant Sections 6(2) and 10 (3) thereof are reproduced below:

“6. Refusal of passports, travel documents. etc.— (2) Subject to the other provisions of this Act, the passport authority shall refuse to issue a passport or travel document for visiting any foreign country under clause (c) of