Case Name: Vishal Shah Vs. Monalisa Gupta and Ors.
Case Number: SPL(Crl.) No. 4297 of 2023
Date: 20 February, 2025
Quorum: Justice Mehta
Facts
The appellant alleged in course of very short stay together for mere 80 days of being subjected continuously to domestic violence by his wife, even submitting reports to police after he himself had sustained overt injuries. As their relationship turned sour, the couple returned to India, only to have the respondent initiate a number of legal cases varying from criminal complaints under different provisions of IPC and DV Act to matrimonial and civil suit across jurisdictions in Bihar and West Bengal.
During the rising litigations, the passport of the appellant was seized on 3 October 2018 under Section 10 of the Passport Act, 1967, for the pending litigations. This seizure caused him to fail to appear in a case of domestic violence, and the trial court issued extradition proceedings against him. The appellant protested this in High Court of Calcutta, the court dismissed the petition. Meanwhile, the appellant sought to have the marriage dissolved under Article 142 of the Constitution, arguing that the relationship was broken from the start.
Issues
- Is it fair to institute extradition proceedings against the appellant where his failure to appear was occasioned by the confiscation of his passport a matter beyond his control?
- Do the facts like merely 80 days’ cohabitation, long-standing separation (where the appellant is in the USA since 2019), and a barrage of litigations by the responden prove that the marriage has irretrievably collapsed?
- What constitutes a fair permanent alimony given the financial conditions and standard of living during the marriage?
- Was the appellant’s passport impounded in accordance with natural justice, specifically without granting him an opportunity to be heard under Section 10 of the Passport Act, 1967?
Legal Provisions
- Section 10 of the Passport Act, 1967: Permits the impounding of a passport under certain conditions but mandates that the affected individual must be given a chance to be heard before such an order is made.
- Article 142 of the Constitution of India: Empowers the Court to pass any order necessary for complete justice—including dissolving a marriage that has become irretrievable.
- Domestic Violence (DV) Act: Provides for quasi-criminal proceedings in domestic disputes, which typically do not require personal appearance unless a breach of a protection order is involved.
Arguments by the Appellants
The appellant contended that his failure to appear in court was not a matter of choice but a direct consequence of his passport being impounded without any opportunity for him to be heard a clear breach of natural justice. He further argued that the marriage was doomed from the start; the couple only lived together for 80 days before parting, and the subsequent prolonged separation (with the appellant residing in the USA since 2019) along with incessant litigation by the respondent confirmed the irretrievable breakdown of the marital relationship. Besides, the court further said that the appellant had also received a handsome lump sum as amicable settlement alimony, but the respondent refused to cooperate. In light of all these facts, the appellant approached the Court to set aside the marriage under Article 142 and order a reasonable alimony award.
Arguments by the Respondents
The respondent’s counsel represented that the presence of the appellant in court was essential, particularly for quasi-criminal cases according to the DV Act, and that his absence justified the process of extradition. They represented that the various cases in law that had been lodged against the appellant were supported by evidence of domestic violence and that his contempt towards the orders of the court made stringent measures unavoidable. While acknowledging the short duration of cohabitation, the respondent stressed that her aim was to preserve the marriage and that her litigation efforts were driven by genuine grievances rather than vindictiveness. She opposed dissolution on the grounds proposed by the appellant and contended that her primary interest was in restoring marital life rather than receiving monetary compensation.
Analysis
The Court observed that the appellant’s inability to appear in court stemmed from the impoundment of his passport a step taken without affording him an opportunity to be heard. This omission contravenes natural justice, as highlighted in Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India. Furthermore, given the quasi-criminal nature of the DV proceedings, requiring the appellant’s personal appearance was not ordinarily necessary unless there was a breach of a protection order.
Examining the matrimonial relationship, the Court found that the couple’s cohabitation lasted only 80 days, followed by a prolonged period of separation with no attempt at reconciliation. The numerous litigations initiated by the respondent and the prolonged absence of marital ties clearly indicated that the marriage had irretrievably broken down.
In terms of alimony, the Court weighed factors including the respondent’s current employment as a Research Specialist earning Rs. 50,000 per month, the appellant’s previous high income versus his current unemployment, and the standard of living during the marriage. The Court concluded that a one-time settlement of Rs. 25 lakhs was both fair and reasonable.
Judgment
The orders dated 15 September 2022 (by the Judicial Magistrate, Howrah) and 25 January 2023 (by the High Court of Calcutta) directing the initiation of extradition proceedings are quashed, as the appellant’s non-appearance resulted from an unlawful passport impoundment. Exercising its extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 142, the Court dissolved the marriage on the grounds of irretrievable breakdown. The evidence unmistakably demonstrated that the marital relationship had failed beyond repair.
All criminal, civil, and domestic violence cases between the respondent and the appellant (and his family members) are to be terminated. The respondent is hereby directed to mandate that the appellant make a deposit of Rs. 25 lakhs, which the appellant must give to the respondent as permanent alimony. The amount must be deposited within two months, and the respondent must receive it within two weeks of deposit. In this respect, an affidavit confirming acceptance shall be filed before the Court. Authorities are to release the impounded passport, if any, within one week of judgment.
Conclusion
The Court’s decision is a strong affirmation of the principles of natural justice and judicial discretion. It held that the appellant’s non-appearance in court was not his fault but the result of an unlawful passport impoundment, and that the marriage had clearly irretrievably broken down evidenced by a brief period of cohabitation, prolonged separation, and relentless litigation. By dismissing the extradition proceedings, annulling the marriage, disposing of pending cases, and granting permanent alimony, the Court not only restored the right of the appellant to freedom of movement but has also granted overall relief in a case that was dominated by deep personal and legal contest.
“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal falls into the category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”
Written by OUM NARANG
