This judgment is from January 2022, where the Supreme Court has held that no person can be denied his fundamental right of personal liberty to travel abroad, subject to possession of a valid passport, visa and other requisite travel documents, only because he is arrayed as accused in a complaint filed by his brother’s wife against his brother being the husband of the complainant, and that too when the allegations in the complaint do not disclose any criminal offence on the part of the Appellant.

A Division Bench of Justice Indira Banerjee and Justice J.K. Maheshwari observed that failure to control an adult brother, living independently, or giving advice to the complainant to adjust to avoid vindictive retaliation cannot constitute cruelty on the part of Deepak Sharma (Appellant) within the meaning of Section 498A of the IPC.

Going by the background of the case, pursuant to matrimonial disputes between the complainant and her husband Nitin Sharma, an FIR was lodged by the complainant against her husband and in-laws u/s 323, 34, 406, 420, 498A and 506 of the IPC, which was registered at the Thanesar City Police Station at Kurukshetra u/s 154 of CrPC.

The Division Bench noted that in the complaint, the complainant has given the address of her husband in U.S.A. in addition to his permanent address at Faridabad. Further, the complainant has, for reasons known to herself, not made any reference in her complaint to the fact that the Appellant is a resident of Texas, where he is working.

From the complaint itself, it is patently clear that the Appellant does not reside in the same premises as his brother, being the husband of the complainant, added the Bench.

The Top Court further found that the Appellant works in Texas, U.S.A., whereas his brother lives and works in North Carolina.

The complainant had not given any particulars of the jewellery that had allegedly been taken by her mother-in-law and brother-in-law, and there was not a whisper of whether any jewellery was lying with the Appellant, added the Court.

Accordingly, the apprehension that the husband of the complainant who had been working in the U.S.A. might leave the country cannot be ground to deny the Appellant’s prayer to go back to the U.S.A. to resume his duties in a Company in which he has been working for about 9/10 years, added the Court.

Hence, the Top Court set aside the order of the High Court denying permission to the Appellant to leave the country.