DVC Proceedings Are Civil in Nature, Not Criminal: Madras HC Sets Aside Passport Revocation Order

Madras High Court holds that a domestic violence complaint under the PWDVA does not amount to a criminal proceeding justifying passport revocation, quashing the Regional Passport Office's order against a man seeking to pursue post-doctoral studies abroad.

The Madras High Court has set aside an order by the Regional Passport Office, Coimbatore, that directed petitioner R. Ramaswamy to surrender his passport after his wife initiated proceedings against him under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005. Justice V. Lakshminarayanan, sitting singly, held that a proceeding under the PWDVA—until it reaches the stage of Section 31 of that Act—is civil in character, not criminal. Since passport revocation power exists to secure the appearance of a holder facing criminal proceedings, it could not be invoked on the basis of a DVC complaint.

The Passport Revocation Order Challenged

R. Ramaswamy approached the Madras High Court by way of WP Crl. No. 2113 of 2026, seeking a writ of certiorarified mandamus to quash an order dated 05 August 2026 passed by the Regional Passport Office, Coimbatore (File No. CB21C5037460518, Letter Ref. No. IMP/1056288440/26).

The passport office had asked Ramaswamy to return his passport, citing DVC No. 201 of 2025 pending before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Special Court to try cases filed under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, Coimbatore. The office treated this DVC proceeding as a criminal proceeding and, on that basis, directed surrender of the passport.

Ramaswamy's position was that his wife had filed both a DVC case and that proceedings between the spouses were also pending before the Family Court, Coimbatore. He stated that he intended to undertake a Post Doctoral Fellowship abroad, and that giving effect to the impugned order would cause him serious prejudice.

Whether a DVC Proceeding Is a Criminal Proceeding

The central question before Justice Lakshminarayanan was whether a proceeding under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, constitutes a “criminal proceeding” so as to attract the passport revocation power.

The court drew a distinction based on the stage of the proceedings. A DVC proceeding, the court held, carries a civil flavour until it reaches the stage contemplated by Section 31 of the PWDVA. Section 31 deals with breach of a protection order and provides for punishment as a criminal offence. Short of that stage, the proceeding does not transform into a criminal proceeding simply because it is filed before a Magistrate.

The court further reasoned that the purpose behind empowering the passport authority to revoke a passport is to ensure that a person facing a criminal proceeding does not flee the jurisdiction and fail to appear before the court. That rationale does not apply where the underlying proceeding is civil in nature.

The bench observed that on account of a matrimonial dispute, the husband or wife cannot be denied the right to travel abroad. The invocation of the passport revocation power against Ramaswamy—solely on the ground of the pending DVC complaint—was therefore unsustainable.

Order

Justice V. Lakshminarayanan allowed WP Crl. No. 2113 of 2026 and set aside the order passed by the Regional Passport Office, Coimbatore, dated 05 August 2026. No costs were awarded. The matter was heard on 20 August 2026, the same date on which the order was pronounced.

Ms. C. Petricia Joany appeared for the petitioner. Mr. A. Kumaraguru, Senior Central Government Standing Counsel, appeared for the Regional Passport Office. Mr. Arun Anbumani, Additional Public Prosecutor, appeared for the State.