$~65 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(C) 5215/2025 NELVIS CUSTODIO RODRIGUES .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Shrikant Samantara, Adv.

versus UNION OF INDIA & ANR. .....Respondents Through: Mr. Nidhi Raman, CGSC with Mr.

Arnav Mittal and Mr. Akash Mishra, Advs. for UoI.

Mr. Mukul Singh, CGSC with Ms. Ira Singh and Mr. Aryan Dhaka, Advs.

for CORAM:

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV

O R D E R

% 19.01.2026

1. By way of the present writ petition under Article 226 of Constitution of India the Petitioner seeks directions to remove the name of Petitioner’s wife from the Blacklist and to grant X2 Entry Visa.

2. It is the case of the Petitioner that he married to Mrs. Nyangoma Solange (hereinafter ‘Petitioner’s wife’) who is citizen of Uganda & that the petitioner’s wife presently resides in Uganda itself along with their son who was born on 01.08.2024.

3. Petitioner contends that his wife had visited India on 15.02.2022 through an E-business Visa having ETA No. 90033465L which was valid from 13.12.2021 to 12.12.2022. The petitioner and his wife solemnised a private marriage ceremony in Navi Mumbai on 02.11.2023. However, registration of marriage in India was denied due to the wife’s expired visa status. The Petitioner’s wife approached the Foreign Regional Registration Office (hereinafter ‘FRRO’) Pune, seeking visa extension/conversion on the ground of marriage to an Indian citizen. Since the overstay was long, the FRRO advised her to obtain an exit permit and leave India. Complying with official instructions, the petitioner’s wife paid the prescribed penalty, obtained an exit permit, and voluntarily departed India on 01.02.2024.

4. In February 2025, the petitioner’s wife applied for an e-Tourist Visa. While the child’s visa was granted, the petitioner’s wife visa was rejected. Subsequently, on 11.03.2025, the petitioner’s wife applied for a regular X-2 Entry Visa as the spouse of an Indian citizen at the High Commission of India, Kampala irrespective of submission of all documents, the application remains “under process”.

5. Upon enquiry, the petitioner was orally informed by the High Commission that the visa could not be processed as the Petitioner’s wife’s passport had been blacklisted for three years, allegedly on instructions from authorities in India.

6. However, during the course of hearing, it has been brought to attention of the Court that the blacklisting of the petitioner is expiring on 01.02.2026. Learned counsel for the respondents contends that the petitioner, thereafter, shall be at liberty to apply afresh and in case, an application is received, the same will be considered in accordance with law.

The aforesaid stand is taken on record.

7. Let the petitioner to apply a fresh after the expiry of the blacklisting and the said application be considered in accordance with law.

8. With the aforesaid observations, petition stands disposed of.

PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV, J JANUARY 19, 2026 P/MJ