SC allows husband to travel overseas for employment despite pending criminal case under Section 498A

Supreme Court allows husband to travel overseas for employment despite pending criminal case

The Supreme Court recently ruled that a person facing criminal charges cannot be denied the right to travel abroad for employment solely because a case is pending. The court allowed a husband accused under Sections 498A (it is a legal provision that addresses the issue of cruelty by husbands or their relatives towards married women). and 406 of the Indian Penal Code (it deals with the punishment for criminal breach of trust) and the Tamil Nadu Prohibition of Harassment Act to take up a job in Belgium, noting that the investigation had remained incomplete for over a year and no chargesheet had been filed.

“Right to travel is recognised as a fundamental right; however, it is not an absolute right as has been held by the Supreme Court on prior occasions,” said Jaideep Singh Khattar, Co-Founder and Partner, The Fort Circle.

On December 9, the court held that the prolonged pendency of proceedings cannot stall career opportunities. The court allowed him to travel, subject to the condition that he either attends the court proceedings in person or via video call and also deposits Rs 5 lakh as security.

“Court clarifies that the mere pendency of a criminal case, particularly under Section 498A IPC, and more so at the investigative stage without a chargesheet, cannot be used as a tool to indefinitely curtail an accused person’s fundamental right to livelihood and personal liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution, as recognised by the Supreme Court,” said Tushar Kumar, Advocate, Supreme Court.

In this case husband approached the Supreme Court after the Madras High Court refused to permit him to travel abroad for employment while a matrimonial dispute was pending. He is an accused in FIR No. 6 of 2024 dated March 15, 2024, registered at the All Women Police Station, Vellore, under Sections 498A and 406 of the IPC and Section 4 of the Tamil Nadu Prohibition of Harassment of Women Act, 1998, based on a complaint filed by his wife. The appellant has denied the allegations, claiming they are false and motivated.

Despite the FIR being registered in March 2024, the investigation has remained pending for over a year without the filing of a chargesheet. During this period, the appellant was granted bail, complied with all conditions imposed by the court, and continued to remain in India. There is no allegation that he attempted to flee or obstruct the investigation at any stage.

The appellant informed the Court that he had been unemployed for nearly two years and had recently secured a job offer from a Belgium-based company, with a joining deadline of December 9, 2025, for which a short extension had already been taken. He informed the court that he did not wish to leave the country without prior court approval and assured that he would appear whenever required and participate in proceedings through video conferencing, if permitted.

After considering arguments from both sides, the Supreme Court Bench comprising Justice Rajesh Bindal and Justice Manmohan held that the mere pendency of a criminal case cannot, by itself, be a ground to refuse permission to travel abroad.

“The Supreme Court has clarified that courts must adopt a balanced, case-specific approach, rather than impose blanket travel restrictions simply because charges under Sections 498A/406 IPC are pending,” said Yatharth Rohila, Partner, Aeddhaas Legal LLP.

The case is important as it sets a judicial precedent of how courts should balance criminal proceedings with fundamental right to livelihood and career opportunities. “The court has balanced the complainant’s concern that the husband will not return to India if he is allowed to go abroad by imposing condition of depositing Rs 5 lakhs as security. It also reinforces the principle that a person is innocent until proven guilty. In this case the investigation has not been completed even after a year and this judgment encourages lower courts to adopt a more individualised approach rather than imposing blanket restrictions in 498A cases involving prolonged trial,” said Apeksha Lodha, Partner, Singhania & Co.