Kerala High Court Allows Passport NOC for Accused in Matrimonial Case Despite Suppression, Citing Right to Employment - 2025-04-26

Kerala High Court Grants Passport No Objection Certificate to Accused in Matrimonial Dispute Case

Kochi: In a significant ruling balancing the rights of an accused person with the pendency of criminal proceedings, the High Court of Kerala has directed the issuance of a No Objection Certificate (NOC) for a fresh passport application by an individual facing trial in a case stemming from a matrimonial dispute. The court set aside a lower court's order that had denied the NOC, emphasizing the accused's right to seek overseas employment despite prior suppression of the case history.

The judgment was delivered by MR. JUSTICE A. BADHARUDEEN , J in the case of ISMAIL VALUMATHIGE vs UNION TERRITORY OF LAKSHADWEEP (Crl.MC 9520/2024).

Case Background:

The petitioner, Ismail Valumathige, is the second accused in SC No.4/2019 before the Sessions Court, Kavaratti, Lakshadweep. He is facing serious charges under Sections 498A, 354B, 323, 506, 377, 511, and 376 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. These allegations arose from a complaint by the defacto complainant (wife of the first accused, who is the petitioner's brother), who alleged harassment and compelled co-operation with the petitioner's "sexual desires" within the matrimonial home. The case has been pending since 2019.

The petitioner, a seaman, required a passport for overseas employment to support his family. He had previously obtained a passport in January 2024 but it was seized by the Immigration Department after he failed to provide a satisfactory explanation regarding a notice. The Sessions Court denied his application for an NOC to obtain a fresh passport, primarily citing that he had obtained the earlier passport by suppressing the pendency of the criminal case and was facing prosecution under Section 12 of the Passports Act, 1967 for this suppression.

Arguments Presented:

The petitioner contended that he did not willfully suppress the criminal case details when applying for the passport renewal, attributing the omission to a communication gap with the agency that handled his application and his limited knowledge of Mahl language. He argued that without a passport, he cannot pursue his livelihood as a bosun, especially for fishing which may involve traversing international waters.

The respondents, the Union Territory of Lakshadweep and the Regional Passport Officer, opposed the plea. They highlighted the petitioner's suppression of material facts and argued that he had been stalling the trial, which was posted for scheduling on December 3, 2024. They supported the Sessions Court's decision, stating the petitioner was not entitled to legalize a fraudulent act (obtaining a passport through suppression). The Passport Authority counsel, however, submitted that a fresh passport could be issued if the court provided an NOC.

High Court's Analysis and Ruling:

Justice A. Badharudeen acknowledged the seriousness of obtaining a passport by suppressing the pendency of a criminal case and the subsequent seizure of the passport. The court noted that the previously impounded passport could not be returned or renewed. However, the court emphasized that a fresh application could be considered if an NOC from the court was produced.

The High Court laid down principles for considering passport NOC applications for accused persons. It stated that courts must consider factors like the seriousness of the offence and the possibility of the accused absconding. Crucially, the court observed:

> "When matrimonial dispute is the base where from the criminal case arose, the court shall be so liberal in the matter of issuance of No Objection Certificate, otherwise the right to go abroad, with permission of the court to do some employment therein without obstructing the trial, would be in peril."

The court extended this principle to cases involving "trivial and simple offences". While acknowledging the earlier suppression by the petitioner, the court held that in cases arising from matrimonial disputes and trivial offences, such omissions should not necessarily prevent the issuance of an NOC or Emergency Certificate, as it is necessary to ensure the accused's "right to life" (which includes the right to livelihood/employment).

The court distinguished this from serious offences like murder, rape, POCSO, and NDPS cases, where stricter conditions must be imposed to secure the accused's presence for trial, although NOC/Emergency Certificate should still be considered favourably in necessary circumstances (e.g., for persons already abroad whose passports expired).

Finding the present case, rooted in a matrimonial dispute, fit for issuing an NOC despite the earlier suppression, the High Court set aside the Sessions Court's order.

Decision and Directions:

The court directed the Regional Passport Officer (2nd respondent) to consider the petitioner's application for a fresh passport, if filed within one month, and issue a new passport. The court itself issued the necessary No Objection Certificate.

Further, recognizing the delay in the criminal proceedings (pending for 5 years), the court directed the petitioner to cooperate with the trial and ordered the Sessions Court, Kavaratti, to expedite the trial and dispose of the case within a period of three months from receiving the copy of the order.

The registry has been directed to forward a copy of the order to the jurisdictional court for necessary action. This ruling underscores the judiciary's role in balancing the state's interest in prosecution with an individual's fundamental right to livelihood and travel, particularly in less heinous criminal matters.