4 June 2025 Legal Updates

GUIDELINES RELATING TO ISSUANCE OF INDIAN PASSPORTS CANNOT CIRCUMVENT PASSPORT ACT & RULES: KERALA HIGH COURT

(a) Case Title:

• Josna Raphael Poovathingal v. Union of India & Anr.

(b) Court:

• High Court of Kerala at Ernakulam

(c) Date of Decision:

• May 26, 2025

(d) Bench:

• Justice Mohammed Nias C.P.

Facts of the Case

The petitioner, a 51-year-old government servant, sought correction of her date of birth in her passport based on her birth certificate. The Regional Passport Officer refused to consider her application, insisting that she first correct the date of birth in her service records before applying for passport correction.

Legal Issue

Whether passport authorities can insist on correction of service records as a prerequisite for correcting date of birth in passport when such correction has become impossible due to expiry of statutory time limits.

Arguments

Petitioner's Counsel argued:

• Correction of service records was impossible as the prescribed time period had long expired
• Under the Passports (Amendment) Rules, 2025, only an affidavit stating reasons for date of birth change was required
• Administrative guidelines cannot override statutory provisions

Respondents' Position:

• Service record correction was mandatory before passport correction could be considered

Court's Decision and Reasoning

The Court allowed the writ petition and directed the passport office to consider the application without insisting on service record correction.

Key Legal Principles Applied:

Doctrine of Impossibility: The Court applied several Latin maxims:

• Lex non cogit ad impossibilia (law does not compel impossible performance)
• Impossibilium nulla obligatio est (no obligation to do the impossible)
• Nemo tenetur ad impossibilia (no one is bound to do impossibilities)

WIFE HAS RIGHT TO LIVE IN SHARED HOUSEHOLD EVEN AFTER HUSBAND'S DEATH: KERALA HIGH COURT

(a) Case Title:

• Chenthamara @ Kannan & Ors. v. Meena & Anr.

(b) Court:

• High Court of Kerala at Ernakulam

(c) Date of Decision:

• May 23, 2025

(d) Bench:

• Hon'ble Mrs. Justice M.B. Snehalatha

Background Facts

This case involves a widow, Meena, who sought protection under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 against her in-laws (brother-in-laws, sister-in-laws, and mother-in-law). After her husband Gopi's death in 2009, her in-laws attempted to evict her from the matrimonial home and obstructed her peaceful residence there.

Legal Journey

• Trial Court (Magistrate): Dismissed Meena's petition, finding she failed to prove domestic relationship and wasn't an "aggrieved person" under the DV Act
• Sessions Court: Allowed her appeal and granted protection, restraining in-laws from domestic violence and obstruction
• High Court: Upheld the Sessions Court decision, dismissing the revision petition by in-laws

Key Legal Issues Addressed

• Whether a widow can claim residence rights in matrimonial home against in-laws
• Definition of "aggrieved person" and "domestic relationship" under DV Act
• Whether owning other property disqualifies a woman from residence rights
• Whether actual cohabitation with respondents is mandatory for relief

Definition of Key Terms:

1. Domestic Violence (Section 3):

• The Court noted the comprehensive definition covering physical, sexual, verbal, emotional, and economic abuse, including harassment for dowry demands and threatening conduct.

2. Aggrieved Person (Section 2(a)):

• Defined as "any woman who is, or has been, in a domestic relationship with the respondent and who alleges to have been subjected to any act of domestic violence."

3. Shared Household (Section 2(s)):

• The Court emphasized this includes any household where the aggrieved person lives or has lived in a domestic relationship, regardless of ownership or tenancy rights.

4. Domestic Relationship (Section 2(f)):

• Encompasses relationships between persons who live or have lived together in a shared household, related by consanguinity, marriage, or family members in a joint family.

Court's Reasoning

The High Court emphasized that:

• The DV Act is beneficial social legislation requiring liberal interpretation
• A woman's right to reside in shared household is fundamental, irrespective of ownership or title
• The Act prevents displacement and dispossession of women from marital homes
• Owning other property doesn't disqualify residence rights in matrimonial home
• Actual cohabitation with alleged perpetrators isn't mandatory for seeking relief

Court’s Decision

The Court affirmed the Sessions Court's judgment which had granted the following reliefs to Meena:

1. Protection Order-

• Restraining the respondents (in-laws) from committing any acts of domestic violence against Meena and her children

2. Residence Order-

• Restraining the respondents from causing any obstruction to Meena and her children from: Entering the shared household (matrimonial home) and Peaceful living in the shared household