The Supreme Court has permitted an accused in a matrimonial case under IPC 498A to travel abroad for employment, holding that mere pendency of investigation cannot destroy a person’s career. The Court imposed safeguards to ensure trial participation and return.
NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court of India has passed an important order reinforcing the principle that criminal proceedings cannot be used to paralyse a person’s professional life, especially when the investigation itself remains incomplete for a long period.
In this case, the appellant (husband), approached the Supreme Court after the Madras High Court refused him permission to travel abroad for employment while a matrimonial case was pending against him.
The appellant is an accused in FIR No. 6 of 2024 dated 15 March 2024, registered at All Women Police Station (AWPS), Vellore, Tamil Nadu. The FIR was lodged under Sections 498A and 406 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 4 of the Tamil Nadu Prohibition of Harassment of Women Act, 1998. The case was filed on the complaint of his wife. According to the appellant, the allegations are false and motivated.
Despite the FIR being registered in March 2024, the police investigation had continued for more than a year without filing a chargesheet. During this period, the appellant remained on bail and complied with all bail conditions. He also remained in India throughout this time and did not attempt to evade the legal process.
The appellant informed the Court that he had been unemployed for nearly two years and had finally secured a job opportunity at a company based in Belgium. He was required to join by 9 December 2025, for which he had already taken a short extension.
Being a law-abiding citizen, he did not want to leave India without prior permission of the Court. He also assured that he would appear before the court whenever required and would attend hearings through video conferencing if permitted.
The State opposed the request, arguing that if the appellant was allowed to leave India, there was a risk that he might not return, which could delay the trial in the FIR registered against him.
After hearing both sides, the Supreme Court Bench of Justice Rajesh Bindal and Justice Manmohan clearly held that permission to travel abroad should not be denied merely because a criminal case is pending. The Court noted that it was undisputed that the appellant had been in India for more than one year and yet the investigation had not been completed. The Court further observed that if the appellant was prevented from joining his overseas employment, his career prospects would suffer serious and irreparable harm.
Balancing the rights of the accused with the interests of justice, the Supreme Court allowed the appeal and granted permission to travel abroad, subject to strict conditions. The Court directed the appellant to deposit a sum of ₹5,00,000 with the trial court within two weeks. This amount is to be kept in a fixed deposit with a nationalised bank initially for one year and renewed automatically until the appellant returns or the trial concludes. The amount can be released only by a specific order of the trial court.
The appellant was also directed to file an undertaking before the trial court within two weeks, stating that he will attend every hearing after the chargesheet is filed and will appear personally whenever the court requires. The Court further made it clear that if the appellant fails to comply with his undertaking, the deposited amount of ₹5,00,000 shall stand forfeited to the State upon an order of the trial court.
With these safeguards in place, the Supreme Court modified the earlier order of the Madras High Court and allowed the appeal. The Court emphasised that the criminal justice system must ensure fairness and cannot allow prolonged investigations to become a punishment in themselves.
This judgment is significant for thousands of working professionals facing prolonged matrimonial litigation, particularly under Section 498A IPC, where investigations often stretch for years.
The ruling sends a clear message that courts must protect both the integrity of the trial process and the fundamental right of individuals to livelihood and professional growth, especially when guilt has not been established.
Explanatory Table of Laws and Sections Involved
| Law / Provision | Section | Simple Explanation |
| Indian Penal Code, 1860 | Section 498A | Deals with cruelty by husband or his relatives against a married woman. Often invoked in matrimonial disputes. |
| Indian Penal Code, 1860 | Section 406 | Relates to criminal breach of trust, commonly alleged for non-return of dowry articles or stridhan. |
| Tamil Nadu Prohibition of Harassment of Women Act, 1998 | Section 4 | Punishes harassment of women, including mental or physical harassment. |
| Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 | Bail Conditions (implicit) | Allows courts to impose conditions to ensure presence of the accused during investigation and trial. |
| Constitutional Right | Article 21 (implicit) | Protects the right to life and personal liberty, which includes the right to livelihood and career. |
Case Summary
- Case Title: AMZ vs The State Rep. by the Inspector of Police & Another
- Court: Supreme Court of India
- Jurisdiction: Criminal Appellate Jurisdiction
- Case Number: Criminal Appeal No. of 2025 (Arising out of SLP (Criminal) No. 17752 of 2025)
- Originating Case: Criminal M.P. No. 17141 of 2025 in Criminal O.P. No. 23042 of 2024 High Court of Judicature at Madras
- FIR Details:
- FIR No. 6 of 2024
- Date: 15 March 2024
- Police Station: All Women Police Station (AWPS), Vellore
- District: Vellore, Tamil Nadu
- Sections Invoked in FIR:
- Sections 498A and 406 IPC
- Section 4 of Tamil Nadu Prohibition of Harassment of Women Act, 1998
- Bench: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rajesh Bindal and Hon’ble Mr. Justice Manmohan
Counsels
- For the Appellant:
- Ms. R. Shase, AOR
- Mr. Selvam Packiam, Advocate
- Mr. Sibi Kargil V, Advocate
- Tripaskha Litigation
- For the Respondents:
- Mr. Sabarish Subramanian, AOR
- Mr. V. Ramasubramanian, Advocate
- Mr. A. Lakshminarayanan, AOR
- Mr. N. Mahendra Babu, Advocate
- Mr. B. Abdul Samath, Advocate
- Mr. Laxhmi Mahendra, Advocate
- Date of Judgment: 9 December 2025
Key Outcome
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal and granted permission to the accused to travel abroad for employment, holding that mere pendency of a criminal case and incomplete investigation cannot be a valid ground to block overseas employment. The High Court order was modified, and strict safeguards were imposed to ensure the accused’s participation in the trial.
Key Takeaways
- A pending 498A or matrimonial FIR cannot be used as a tool to destroy a man’s career, especially when the police fail to complete the investigation on time.
- The Supreme Court has clearly recognised that the right to livelihood and professional growth applies equally to accused men, not just complainants.
- Mere fear that a man may not return is not a legal ground to curtail his freedom when he has cooperated with the law throughout.
- Courts can balance justice by imposing safeguards, instead of blindly denying permission and indirectly punishing an unconvicted man.
- This judgment exposes how prolonged and unchecked misuse of matrimonial laws turns investigation itself into punishment for men.
This Could Change Your Case-Get FREE Legal Advice-Click Here!
Disclaimer: The views and opinions expressed in this article are those of the Indian courts and do not necessarily reflect the official policy or position of “ShoneeKapoor.com” or its affiliates. This article is intended for informational and educational purposes only. The content provided is not legal advice, and viewers should not act upon this information without seeking professional counsel. Viewer discretion is advised.