Delhi High Court
Iryna Chakryzhova vs Union Of India & Anr on 10 August, 2016
$~26
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Judgment delivered on: 10.08.2016
+ W.P.(C) 6038/2016
IRYNA CHAKRYZHOVA ..... Petitioner
versus
UNION OF INDIA & ANR ..... Respondents
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the Petitioner : Mr. A.K. Bajpai with Mr. Rajeev L. Mahunta, Advocates.
For the Respondents: Mr. Neeraj Jain with Ms. Natasha Thakur, Advocates.
CORAM:-
HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SANJEEV SACHDEVA
JUDGMENT
10.08.2016
SANJEEV SACHDEVA, J. (ORAL)
1. The petitioner seeks a mandamus thereby directing the respondent
No.2 to convert the Business visa of the petitioner into Entry (X) Visa
and to reconsider the petitioner's application dated 24.06.2016 afresh.
2. It is contended that the petitioner is a citizen of Belarus and was
last issued business visa, by the respondents, with multiple entries for a
period of two years, which was to expire on 03.08.2016. At this juncture,
it may be noted that this Court by an interim order dated 29.07.2016
directed the respondents to process the application for extension of the
visa of the petitioner. The visa of the petitioner has been extended till
16.08.2016.
3. The petitioner claims to be in a live-in relationship for the last 22
years with one Sh. Baldev Singh, who suffered hemorrhagic stroke on
06.05.2014 and was diagnosed with right hemiplegia with complete loss
of speech. It is contended that the petitioner is the sole person
responsible for taking care of Sh. Baldev Singh and her presence is
constantly required for the same. It is contended that none of the family
members of Sh. Baldev Singh are either in a position to take care of him
or are in fact taking care of him. Sh. Baldev Singh is unable to take care
and protect himself. It is contended that the petitioner is physically,
mentally, financially and emotionally giving care to Sh. Baldev Singh,
who is her live-in partner.
4. It is contended, that on account of the fact that the petitioner was
taking care of Sh. Baldev Singh, she suffered loss in her business and,
accordingly, has discontinued her business and is completely devoting
time and attention to Sh. Baldev Singh.
5. The petitioner applied for conversion of the Business Visa into
Entry (X) visa on 24.06.2016 through the online process. On 27.06.2016,
the application was refused to be taken on record and the conversion of
Business visa to Entry (X) visa was rejected on the ground of incomplete
documentation. It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner
that as far as the petitioner understands the sole reason for rejection is that
the petitioner could not produce a marriage certificate of her marriage
with Sh. Baldev Singh.
6. It is contended that the case of the petitioner is that the petitioner is
not married with Sh. Baldev Singh but is in live-in relationship in the
nature of marriage with him for the last 22 years. Reliance is placed on
the decision of the Single Bench of this Court in Svetlana Kazankina &
Ors. vs. Union of India & Anr.: (2015) 225 DLT 613 to contend that this
Court had recognized the need to extend the benefit of rules/guidelines
providing for extension of visa of foreigners married to an Indian national
or foreigners though not married but in a live-in relationship in the nature
of marriage with an Indian national. It is thus claimed that the petitioner
should be extended similar benefits as is available to foreigners married
to an Indian national.
7. Learned counsel for the respondents has contended that the rules
framed by the respondents on the said subject are applicable only in the
case of a foreign national, who is married to an Indian and submits a copy
of the registered marriage certificate. It is contended that since the
petitioner was not married, the application of the petitioner could not be
entertained. Learned counsel for the respondents further submits that as
per the information of the respondents there are litigations and complaints
filed against the petitioner by the mother of Sh. Baldev Singh.
8. With regard to the decision in the case of Svetlana Kazankina
(supra), learned counsel for the respondents submits that in terms of the
directions therein, the respondents are taking a policy decision whether to
extend the benefit of extension of visa as presently available to foreigners
married to Indian national and also to foreigners in a live-in relationship
with Indian national. He submits that the matter is under active
consideration. Learned counsel for the respondents further contends that
in the said judgment, the learned Judge has also recognized that the
question whether a relationship will fall within the expression
"relationship in the nature of marriage" is relevant.
9. I am of the view that the ratio of the decision in Svetlana
Kazankina (supra) would squarely apply to the case of the petitioner
insofar as it permits a representation of a person in a live-in relationship
to be considered by the respondents.
10. The petitioner has contended that she is in a live-in relationship
with Sh. Baldev Singh for the last 22 years. The petitioner is also relying
on certain confirmations by the children of Sh. Baldev Singh in favour of
the petitioner. The contention is that the wife of Sh. Baldev Singh has
deserted him and the mother of Sh. Baldev Singh is very aged and there is
no other person who is in a position to take care of Sh. Baldev Singh.
11. All these alleged facts would be taken into account by the
respondents while considering the question whether the relationship of
the petitioner with Sh. Baldev Singh is in the nature of a marriage.
12. Accordingly, this petition is disposed of permitting the petitioner to
file a detailed representation with the respondent No.2 Foreigner
Regional Registration Office, (F&R Branch) at New Delhi within two
days, as requested by the petitioner. The petitioner would also be given a
preliminary hearing on her application on 12.08.2016 at 4:00 pm, as
consented to by the learned counsel for the respondents. The petitioner
shall visit the office of the Foreigner Regional Registration Office
(FRRO) and present her representation. The respondent No.2 shall
consider the representation of the petitioner and take a decision thereon,
in accordance with law, within a period of one month from the date of
submission of the representation.
13. Since the visa of the petitioner is expiring on 16.08.2016, the
petitioner would be leaving the country and the respondents would
consider the request of the petitioner for extension of the business visa for
a period of four weeks or till the decision on the representation of the
petitioner, whichever is later.
14. The writ petition is disposed of in the above terms with liberty to
the petitioner to take such remedies as may be available in law, in case,
the petitioner is aggrieved by the decision of the respondent on the
representation of the petitioner.
15. Dasti under the signatures of the Court Master.
SANJEEV SACHDEVA, J
August 10, 2016
st
