The Bombay High Court has held that matrimonial disputes are personal in nature and such offences cannot be termed as offences involving moral turpitude.

The Court was dealing with a petition against an order of withdrawal of 'No Objection Certificate' (NOC) granted in favour of the petitioner for pursuing AIAPGET 2024, on the ground of pending matrimonial dispute with his wife.

The Division Bench of Justice Vibha Kankanwadi and Justice S.G. Chapalgaonkar held, "Apparently, this is a case of matrimonial i.e. personal dispute between the petitioner and his wife. It is difficult to hold that such offence can be termed as offence relating to moral turpitude, which may have an impact on the entitlement of the petitioner to pursue his educational upliftment through in-service Post Graduate Course."

The petitioner Doctor had challenged the order withdrawing 'No Objection Certificate' (NOC) granted in favour of the petitioner for admission to AIAPGET 2024 on the ground that a case has been registered against him for offences punishable under Sections 498A, 494 read with 34 of IPC as well as Section 3(1)(r)(s) of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act.

Counsel for the petitioner submitted that merely because criminal case is pending against the petitioner, respondent No.3 could not have withdrawn the NOC which is granted in his favour as right to education is plenary right of a citizen flowing from Article 21 of the Constitution of India. He averred that such right needs to be recognized even for in-service candidates and cannot be circumvented by putting arbitrary conditions. He contended that the pendency of such a criminal case cannot be treated as impediment to the right of the petitioner to pursue education or acquire higher qualification.

On the other hand, Counsel for the respondent submitted that the petitioner was ineligible for grant of NOC to pursue NEET-PG entrance test and obtained the same by suppression of the fact regarding pendency of the criminal case. He thus submitted that since the petitioner obtained NOC by suppression of material fact, such NOC is non-est and rightly withdrawn under the impugned order.

The Court accepted the Counsel for petitioner's submission and observed, "Pertinently, the petitioner is facing criminal prosecution for offence punishable under Sections 498-A, 494, 34 of IPC read with Section 3(1)(r)(s) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, on the basis of the report made by his wife. Apparently, this is a case of matrimonial i.e. personal dispute between the petitioner and his wife. It is difficult to hold that such offence can be termed as offence relating to moral turpitude, which may have an impact on the entitlement of the petitioner to pursue his educational upliftment through in-service Post Graduate Course."

The Court rejected the respondent's submission that NOC obtained by the petitioner by exercising fraud or suppression of material fact would be non-est, as it found that such contention was not consistent with the reasons mentioned in the impugned communication.

"The withdrawal of NOC granted in favour of the petitioner is only for the reason that a criminal case is pending against him. There is no stipulation in the impugned order that the petitioner had obtained NOC by suppression of fact about pendency of criminal case," the court said.

The petition was accordingly allowed.

Cause Title: x vs The State of Maharashtra (2024:BHC-AUG:26607-DB)

Click here to read/ download judgement:



Matrimonial MattersBombay High CourtMoral PolicingJustice Vibha Kankanwadi

Sheetal Joon