HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR S.B. Criminal Misc(Pet.) No. 805/2026 Mahipal Singh S/o Prahlad Singh, Aged About 27 Years, Jain Street Dujana, Tehsil-Sumerpur And District Pali, Rajasthan ----Petitioner Versus

1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp

2. Dolly Kunwar W/o Mahipal Singh, D/o Hari Singh R/o Nimboda At Present R/o House No. 141 Housing Board Colony Sirohi District Sirohi ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. KPR Deora For Respondent(s) : Mr. VS Rajpurohit, PP HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BALJINDER SINGH SANDHU

Order

12/03/2026 The present misc. petition has been filed under Section 528 BNSS by the petitioner challenging the order dated 16.04.2025 passed by learned Session Judge, Sirohi whereby the application of the petitioner for traveling abroad to earn his livelihood was rejected.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that due to the matrimonial dispute, the present FIR came to be lodged by wife of the petitioner; challan has been filed and matter is pending trial. He further submits that the petitioner is a young man of 27 years and is holding work permit of Poland and is currently working there. Consequently, if he is unable to go, his services would be terminated, rendering him jobless and his livelihood would be snatched. It is submitted that petitioner’s right to earn livelihood cannot be snatched on the basis of the criminal proceedings which are yet to be decided. It is stated that the criminal prosecution is on its nascent stage and it would surely take a long time to reach on a legitimate conclusion. During the pendency and conclusion of the trial if he would not be allowed to go outside the country, then he will lose his job. It is contended that right to go abroad and right to earn for livelihood is a fundamental right.

Learned counsel for the petitioner further relied upon the order passed by Coordinate Bench of this Court in SB Criminal Misc. Petition No. 1279/2025 in Rehman Khan vs. State of Rajasthan and Ors.

Heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the niceties of the matter.

In the present case, the petitioner has been residing in Poland and is working there. The petitioner cannot be deprived of his right to earn his livelihood merely on the ground of the pendency of the present criminal case, which is an outcome of a matrimonial dispute. It is no longer res integra that the right to travel abroad forms part of the fundamental right guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India.

In the present case, the application of the petitioner has been rejected solely on the ground of pendency of the criminal case against him. However, a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court, in identical circumstances, has permitted the husband to travel abroad for the purpose of earning his livelihood. The relevant paragraphs of the said judgment are reproduced hereunder:

“5.The similar issue has been elaborately discussed by the Coordinate bench, Jaipur in the case of Neeraj Saxena v. Rajasthan Electronics and Instruments Ltd. [S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 16380/2024] dated 23.10.2024 For ready reference, the relevant paragraphs of the order are being reproduced herein below:-

10. Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Smt. Maneka Gandhi Vs. Union of India, reported in AIR 1978 SC 597, has held that the expression “personal liberty” under Article 21 of the Constitution of India has a wider amplitude which includes right to go abroad. A person cannot be deprived to this right except in accordance with the procedure prescribed by the law. 11. Similarly in the case of Satish Chandra Verma (supra), the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held as under:-

“The right to travel abroad is an important basic human right for it nourishes independent and self- determining creative character of the individual, not only by extending his freedoms of action, but also by extending the scope of his experience. The right also extends to private life; marriage; family and friendship are humanities which can be rarely affected throu