Bombay HC allows a 10-year passport renewal for a pilot charged with domestic violence


The Bombay Supreme Court ordered the regional passport authority on Monday to renew the passport of a city-based commercial pilot for 10 years under passport regulations for accused persons after it was submitted that the petitioner had no long-term passport validity due to domestic Has been charged with violence, could not find a regular job as a commercial pilot.

A division bank of Justice SS Shinde and Justice Manish Pitale passed the ruling on a written pleading from the pilot, who worked with Jet Airways, through lawyers Racheeta Dhuru and Amruta Athavale. The plea challenged an order of the Magistrate Court in Mumbai from November 2019, which granted him an extension of his passport for two years.

According to the petitioner, he was offended by the said order because the renewal of his passport for a period of only two years affected his chances of being employed as a professional pilot as his application for employment by commercial airlines will not be considered

The petitioner married in 2005 and has two sons. After the marriage was stormy, his wife filed a criminal complaint, accusing him and his parents of domestic violence. He had also submitted a plea to the HC for the lifting of an FIR against him, which is pending in court.

The petitioner alleged that he was on a maintenance payment of Rs. 80,000 a month to his two children and is also paying installments on a loan he has taken to buy an apartment where his estranged wife lives with the children. The petitioner argued that the failure to renew his passport meant that he could not find employment for 10 years and that this hampered his ability to pay the amount for these expenses.

After hearing the comments of both sides and reviewing the files, the bank stated: “We believe that the magistrate should have given reasons if it was of the opinion that the petitioner’s passport renewal was only limited to two years. In the absence of such reasons, the aforementioned instruction to extend the passport for a limited period of time is incorrect. ”In amending the district court’s decision, the bank instructed the petitioner to extend the petitioner’s passport for 10 years in accordance with the law. The court further instructed the petitioner to pay six month installments for the apartment from April 2021 and any remaining school fees for the children, and has dismissed the objection.


Comments are closed.