Bombay High Court: The present petition was filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India read with Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, challenging the order dated 14-5-2025 passed by the Court of the Sessions Judge, Pandharpur in a case, wherein the application dated 23-4-2025 filed by the petitioner-husband seeking permission to travel to the USA to resume his job, was rejected. A Single Judge Bench of Ashwin D. Bhobe, J., in view of the settlement arrived between the petitioner and Respondent 2-wife, set aside the order dated 14-5-2025 and granted permission to the petitioner to travel to the USA, subject to abiding by the terms and conditions agreed on between the parties and the directions imposed by this Court.
In the present case, criminal proceedings were going on between the petitioner and Respondent 2, registered with the Sangola Police Station for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A, 406, 420, 323, 504, 506 read with Section 34 of the Penal Code, 1860. In addition to the criminal proceedings, proceedings pertaining to the matrimonial dispute were also pending between the parties. The petitioner filed an application dated 23-4-2025 seeking permission to travel to the USA for his job, but the same was opposed by Respondent 2 and was later rejected by the Sessions Judge by order dated 14-5-2025, holding that investigation had not yet been completed, chargesheet was not filed and relief of pre-arrest bail was already granted to the petitioner.
Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner was employed with Stanley Black and Decker INC New Britain Ct (US) (‘the Company’) and was in India since 20-4-2024. The petitioner received a call from his Company to join duties w.e.f. 2-6-2025 and thus, he intended to travel to the USA as he had a fear of losing his job. Whereas counsel for the respondents stated that the petitioner was holding all the original certificates of Respondent 2 and refused to hand over the same to Respondent 2, which thus would not disentitle the petitioner to any discretionary relief.
The Court, at the joint request of the parties, kept the matter back for some time, to enable them an opportunity to see if any workable arrangement could be worked out considering the petitioner’s travel to the USA to protect his job. Thereafter, the petitioner and Respondent 2 agreed to some conditions, wherein it was also agreed that the petitioner should hand over all documents and certificates belonging to Respondent 2, currently at the petitioner’s residence in India and in the USA, to the Respondent 2’s counsel.
The Court directed the petitioner to file an undertaking before the Court stating that he would appear/remain present before the Court as and when his physical presence was required. He was also directed to furnish his residential address in the USA along with proof, and his contact number and e-mail address.
Thus, in view of the settlement arrived between the parties, the Court set aside the order dated 14-5-2025 and granted permission to the petitioner to travel to the USA to resume his job, subject to abiding by the terms and conditions and the directions imposed by this Court.
[Sukrutkumar Babasaheb Bhandare v. State of Maharashtra, 2025 SCC OnLine Bom 2147, decided on 30-5-2025]
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the Petitioner: Nitesh Bhutekar a/w Prathamesh Mandlik, for the Petitioner.
For the Respondents: Sameer M. Mangaonkar, APP for Respondent 1; Umesh R. Mankapure a/w Satyam A. Surana i/b Rati Sinhansane, for Respondent 2; Sukrutkumar Babasaheb Bhandare (Petitioner), present in Court.
Buy Constitution of India HERE
Buy Penal Code, 1860 HERE
Mere vichar se to 498A Ek aesa hathiar h jaise Terrorist ke haath me AK 47 Jo pure samaz ko downfall ki taraf le ja raha h.sabhi jante h ki 498A ka miss use ho raha h.lekin ye to bahut bada kamai ka sadhan ban Gaya h.mahila thana se lekar mediation center advocates even some judges tak.