W.P.(C) 10807/2020 Page 1 of 6

$~

*

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

Date of Decision : 22.07.2021

+

W.P.(C) 10807/2020

BAHAREH BAKHSHI

..... Petitioner

Through

Mr. Ankur Mahindro, & Mr.Rohan

Taneja, Advs.

versus

UNION OF INDIA

..... Respondent

Through

Ms. Nidhi Banga, Adv.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE REKHA PALLI

REKHA PALLI, J (ORAL)

1. The present writ petition has been filed by an Iranian citizen, who is

married to an Indian citizen and is aggrieved by the respondent’s refusal to

consider her application for grant of Overseas Citizenship of India (OCI)

card.

2.

The petitioner’s marriage to one Mr. Paul Fel-El-Dingo D’Silva, an

Indian citizen, was solemnised in Dubai, UAE on 13.05.2009, after he had

converted to Islam on 30.11.2008. The marriage certificate issued to the

couple was translated by an Authorised Translator and certified by the

Consulate General of India at Dubai, UAE. However, the petitioner claims

that disputes arose between Mr. Paul and her, shortly after they

consummated the marriage, which led to her initial return to Iran and her

subsequent relocation to Bengaluru at his insistence. It is the petitioner’s

2021:DHC:2142

W.P.(C) 10807/2020 Page 2 of 6

case that Mr. Paul claimed to have financial difficulties which motivated her

to pursue her Postgraduate degree in Biotechnology in Bengaluru and her

Doctorate from Mysore University to contribute to the family income.

However, in the meanwhile, the relationship soured between the petitioner

and Mr. Paul and he left her in Bengaluru, to reside with his family in Goa.

Consequently, the petitioner instituted a maintenance petition under Section

125 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, against her estranged spouse,

before the learned Family Court in Bengaluru and was awarded a monthly

maintenance amount of Rs.15,000/-. Mr Paul appealed against this order

before the High Court of Karnataka, but was unsuccessful. On 14.11.2020,

the petitioner generated her application for an OCI card on the basis of her

marriage to Mr. Paul, and went to submit it to the local FRRO in Bengaluru

on 04.12.2020 – however, the officials refused to accept the form stating that

the presence of Mr. Paul was requisite for processing her application. It is in

this context that the present petition has come to be filed, the petitioner is

aggrieved by the respondent’s insistence on the physical/virtual presence of

her estranged spouse, who is admittedly an Indian citizen, for the purpose of

processing her OCI card application.

3. In support of the petition, learned counsel for the petitioner submits

that once the petitioner’s marriage with an Indian citizen since the year 2009

has been proved and is an undisputed fact, the same should be enough to

merit grant of an OCI card in her name. He submits that since the

petitioner’s estrangement from Mr. Paul, her Indian husband, forms the basis

of matrimonial litigation, it should come as no surprise that there is some

acrimony between them and that the said Mr. Paul would not be inclined to

cooperate with the petitioner for helping her OCI card application. He

2021:DHC:2142

W.P.(C) 10807/2020 Page 3 of 6

contends that thus, in these circumstances, the mere absence of the

petitioner’s spouse, who is refusing to come to India on account of the inter

se litigation between the parties in various Indian Courts, cannot be a ground

for the respondent to insist that the petitioner’s application will not be

considered without the physical/virtual presence of her estranged spouse. In

support of his contention he seeks to place reliance on a decision of a

Coordinate Bench of this Court in Nataly