Extradition Cannot Be Ordered When Passport is Impounded: Supreme Court Quashes Order Against NRI Husband

No Justification to Require Personal Presence in DV Act Proceedings: In a significant ruling, the Supreme Court of India has quashed an order directing the initiation of extradition proceedings against an NRI husband, Vishal Shah, in a matrimonial dispute. The Court held that "the order of the learned JMFC directing the initiation of extradition proceedings against the appellant as a consequence of his non-appearance, despite being aware of the fact of impounding of the passport of the appellant, is untenable and unsustainable in the eyes of the law.”

Matrimonial Discord Leading to Legal Battles
The case originated from a matrimonial dispute between Vishal Shah and his wife Monalisha Gupta, who got married in 2018. The couple lived together for just 80 days in the United States before their relationship turned bitter. Vishal, a software engineer, alleged that he was subjected to domestic violence by his wife while in the USA. Following an incident where she allegedly attacked him, she was charged with second-degree assault.

The couple returned to India, but Vishal went back to the USA alone. His wife then initiated multiple legal proceedings against him and his family, filing cases under IPC Sections 498A, 307, 506, 406, 323, 324, as well as cases under the Domestic Violence Act and Dowry Prohibition Act in various courts across Bihar and West Bengal.

Following these complaints, Indian authorities impounded Vishal's passport in 2018. Despite this, the Judicial Magistrate, Howrah, directed his personal appearance in Domestic Violence Act proceedings in 2022 and, upon his absence, ordered extradition proceedings against him.

Court's Observations: Extradition Order Unjustified
The Supreme Court took a strong stance against the extradition order, noting that the appellant's inability to travel to India was due to the impounding of his passport—something beyond his control. The Court held: "There cannot be any justification to require the personal presence of the appellant in these proceedings. Thus, the learned Magistrate grossly erred while directing the appellant to remain personally present in the Court.”

It further criticized the High Court of Calcutta for dismissing the appellant's challenge against the order in a non-speaking judgment. The Court noted that the High Court failed to consider the circumstances preventing the appellant from appearing and that a reasoned decision was expected.

Irretrievable Breakdown of Marriage: Divorce Granted Under Article 142
Recognizing the irretrievable breakdown of the marriage, the Supreme Court exercised its extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 142 of the Constitution to dissolve the marriage. The Court cited Shilpa Sailesh v. Varun Sreenivasan and Kiran Jyot Maini v. Anish Pramod Patel, which established that a prolonged period of separation, multiple litigations, and failed reconciliation attempts indicate a marriage that has completely failed.

The Court found that:
•    The couple cohabited for only 80 days.
•    They had been living separately since 2018, with no chance of reconciliation.
•    Multiple litigations were filed by both sides, making any restoration of marital ties impossible.
•    No children were born from the marriage, reducing concerns over its dissolution.
Holding that continuing such a broken marriage would serve no useful purpose, the Court declared: "This is a classic case of irretrievable breakdown of marriage. The admitted long-standing separation, prolonged litigations, and the unwillingness of the parties to reconcile are evidence enough to establish beyond doubt that the marriage between the parties has broken down irretrievably.”

Accordingly, the Supreme Court granted the divorce and ordered Vishal Shah to pay ₹25 lakh as a one-time alimony settlement. It also directed that all pending criminal and civil cases between the parties be closed.
The Court also addressed the illegality of impounding Vishal Shah’s passport, citing Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India, which requires authorities to provide reasons and follow natural justice before taking such a step. The Court ruled that the impoundment was done arbitrarily and ordered the immediate release of the appellant’s passport within a week.

With this verdict, the Supreme Court has provided crucial relief to Vishal Shah, setting aside the extradition order, quashing multiple litigations, and dissolving his marriage under Article 142. The ruling reaffirms that courts must ensure due process before imposing extreme measures such as extradition and passport impoundment.

Date of Decision: February 20, 2025