The Kerala High Court’s judgment in Crl. MC No. 9520 of 2024 (Ismail Valumathige v. Union Territory of Lakshadweep) emphasizes on liberal approach while issuing NOC for passport in Matrimonial Dispute.
The court emphasizes on the importance of balancing the rights of the accused with the integrity of ongoing legal proceedings, especially in cases involving matrimonial disputes or trivial offenses.
Key Takeaways:
Liberal Approach for NOC:
The Court held that in cases arising from matrimonial disputes or trivial offenses, the issuance of a No Objection Certificate (NOC) should be liberal to protect the right to livelihood and life of the accused.
The Court recognized that preventing the issuance of a passport might unnecessarily hinder the accused from seeking employment abroad.
Right to Life:
The judgment connects the ability to secure a passport and livelihood abroad to the broader right to life guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India.
Serious Offenses:
In cases of murder, rape, and other grave crimes, courts must carefully ensure that the accused will not abscond before granting NOCs. Conditions can be imposed to secure their presence at trial.
Suppression of Facts:
The petitioner was accused of omitting information about a pending criminal case while applying for a passport. The court criticized this suppression but ruled that a fresh application could be considered favorably if filed.
Expedited Trial:
The Court directed the trial court to expedite and resolve the pending case within three months, ensuring both justice and efficiency.
Judicial Balance:
While upholding the petitioner’s right to obtain a passport for livelihood, the Court emphasized the need for cooperation in ongoing investigations and adherence to trial schedules.
This judgment can be seen as a step forward in ensuring that matrimonial disputes do not unduly obstruct an individual’s fundamental rights, provided the accused cooperates with legal processes. It offers hope for fairness in such cases, especially where men are often vulnerable to prolonged litigation and societal bias.
