Can a husband be forced to surrender his passport merely because his wife has filed a Domestic Violence case? The Madras High Court has clarified when DV proceedings can actually affect a person’s right to travel abroad.

CHENNAI: The Madras High Court has held that a husband or wife cannot be denied the right to travel abroad merely because a matrimonial dispute or proceedings under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 are pending.

Justice V. Lakshminarayanan passed the order on August 20, 2026, while allowing a petition filed by R. Ramaswamy against an order of the Regional Passport Office, Coimbatore. The passport authority had asked him to return his passport after taking note of Domestic Violence proceedings initiated by his wife.

The husband challenged the passport authority’s order dated August 5, 2026. He told the High Court that matrimonial proceedings between him and his wife were already pending before the Family Court at Coimbatore. His wife had also initiated DVC No. 201 of 2025 before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Special Court dealing with cases under the Domestic Violence Act, Coimbatore.

According to the husband, the passport authority treated the pending DV proceedings as criminal proceedings and consequently directed him to surrender his passport.

He further informed the Court that he intended to pursue a Post Doctoral Fellowship abroad. Therefore, if the passport surrender order continued to operate, it would cause him serious prejudice and could interfere with his academic opportunity abroad.

After examining the matter, the High Court made an important distinction regarding the nature of proceedings under the Domestic Violence Act. It observed that a DVC proceeding remains civil in character until it reaches the stage contemplated under Section 31 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005.

The Court categorically observed:

“A DVC proceeding, till it arrives at the stage of Section 31 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, is one of civil flavour. It is not a criminal proceeding. On account of the dispute between the spouses, the husband or the wife cannot be denied the right to travel abroad.”

The Court further explained that the power available to the passport authority to revoke a passport is intended to ensure that a passport holder appears before a court when facing criminal proceedings. Since the DV proceedings against Ramaswamy were not criminal proceedings at this stage, the basis on which the passport authority had acted did not survive.

Section 31 of the Domestic Violence Act deals with breach of a protection order or interim protection order. Such a breach can constitute an offence under the Act. The High Court’s reasoning therefore makes the stage of the DV proceedings significant rather than treating the mere filing or pendency of a DV case as equivalent to a criminal prosecution.

In the present case, there was nothing in the order to show that the proceedings had reached the Section 31 stage. The husband was nevertheless facing the consequence of surrendering his passport, despite the underlying DVC proceedings being civil in nature at that point.

The High Court therefore found no justification for continuing the passport surrender direction and set aside the Regional Passport Office’s order dated August 5, 2026. The writ petition was allowed without costs.

LAWS AND SECTIONS MENTIONED IN THE CASE

CASE DETAILS

COUNSELS

KEY TAKEAWAYS

• A pending DV case does not automatically make a husband an accused in criminal proceedings. Till Section 31 DV Act is attracted, the proceeding remains civil in flavour.
• A matrimonial dispute cannot become a passport punishment. The Court held that neither spouse can be denied the right to travel abroad merely because marital litigation is pending.
• The husband was asked to surrender his passport even though the DV proceeding was not criminal at that stage. The High Court corrected that overreach.
• His career opportunity abroad was directly at stake. He wanted to pursue a Post Doctoral Fellowship, but the passport order threatened to block it.
• The Madras High Court set the passport surrender order aside. Mere pendency of a wife’s DV case cannot be treated as enough to restrict a husband’s liberty and movement.