Introduction
The case of Rachit Garg versus Mrs. Shreya Mittal Garg, brought before the Delhi District Court, revolves around the appeal under Section 29 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005. Rachit Garg, the appellant, contested an order restraining him from leaving the country without court permission, issued by the Metropolitan Magistrate (Mahila Court), South-West District, New Delhi.
Background
Rachit Garg and Shreya Mittal Garg entered into wedlock on 23rd November 2019. Rachit alleged enduring hardship and humiliation due to Shreya’s abusive behavior. The couple began living separately from 14th June 2020, with Rachit initiating divorce proceedings on 11th January 2021. Amidst these proceedings, Shreya moved an application to prevent Rachit from traveling abroad, leading to the impugned order.
Key Arguments
Rachit’s counsel argued that the order was a tool for harassment and lacked merit. They emphasized Rachit’s impeccable societal standing, regular court appearances, and absence of criminal antecedents. Furthermore, they highlighted Rachit’s professional obligations, asserting his need for potential international travel on short notice.
In contrast, Shreya’s counsel contended that Rachit’s departure might impede trial proceedings and cited the pending criminal case under Section 498A/406/377 IPC.
Court’s Observations
The court referenced the case law of Hardeep Singh Arora, affirming the fundamental right to travel. It differentiated DV proceedings from criminal cases, emphasizing the civil nature of DV Act remedies. The court noted Rachit’s compliance, lack of criminal involvement, and professional obligations, ruling the order disproportionate.
Court’s Decision
The court overturned the restraining order, citing the absence of valid reasons to curtail Rachit’s fundamental right. The decision emphasized adherence to legal procedure, highlighting the appellant’s regularity in court and professional requirements.
Conclusion
In a judgment pronounced on 16th July 2022, the Delhi District Court allowed Rachit Garg’s appeal, setting aside the restraining order. The ruling underscored the importance of preserving fundamental rights and legal due process while addressing domestic violence proceedings. The parties were directed to resume proceedings in the lower court, with the appeal concluded and records consigned accordingly.
Reference: https://indiankanoon.org//doc/143522016/