HC asks govt to decide policy on visa extension of foreigners

In a significant order, the Delhi High Court has directed the Centre to take a policy decision within three months on whether visa extensions given to foreigners married to Indian nationals can also be granted to those in live-in relationship with Indians.
Hearing a petition by an Uzbekistan national, Justice Rajiv Sahai Endlaw said the visa extension guidelines meant for foreigners married to Indian citizens could also be extended to foreign nationals in live-in relationships with Indians, just like provisions of the Domestic Violence (DV) Act were applicable to women in live-in relationships.
"The respondents (Union of India and Foreigners Registration Office) to within three months hereof take a policy decision whether to extend the benefit of extension of visa as presently available to foreigners married to Indian nationals also to foreigners in a live-in relationship with Indian nationals..," the court said.

"I am of the view that just like a need was felt to extend the benefit of DV Act also to women in live-in relationships in the nature of marriage, there is a need to extend the benefit of the Rule/Guideline providing for extension of visa of foreigners married to an Indian national to foreigners though not married but in a live-in relationship," Justice Endlaw said.
The direction came during hearing of plea filed by a Uzbekistan national, who sought extension of her visa along with those of her two kids to enable them to stay in India with her live-in-partner, an Indian national.

She also sought direction against the authorities for issuing letters in December 2012 and January 2014 asking her to leave the country.

As per the petition, she was in a live-in relationship with the man after he had visited Uzbekistan. Thereafter, they came to India in 2012 on a single Entry Tourist Visa dated August 24, 2012 for a period of one month.
Later she applied for extension of their (her and her kids) visas, which was denied because she was not able to produce any proof of marriage.
The court observed "..., the Rules/Guidelines providing
for extension of visa of only those foreigners who have married an Indian national, while denying extension of visa to those foreigners who though have not married an Indian national but have been living in with an Indian national has not kept up with the time...

"Parliament itself in DV Act has recognised the need for extension of that Act, besides to matrimonial relationships also to relationships in the nature of marriage and the courts have evolved the tests to determine whether a relationship is in the nature of marriage..."
The court, however, cautioned that in several petitions it has come across cases of foreigners desirous of extending their stay in India and otherwise not entitled thereto coming up with pleas of marriage to an Indian national when prima facie owing to the disparity in age etc. There does not appear any element of matrimony in such claims.

The Supreme Court also in several judgments had not held all live-in relationships to be live-in relationships in the nature of marriage, the high court said.
"The respondents, while considering whether to extend the benefit of extension of visa to foreigners living-in with Indians would also have to lay down the tests in which such benefit may be made available i.E. Whether only to live-in relationship in the nature of marriage or to other live-in relationships also.
"This court does not consider itself competent to lay down the tests in this regard and it is only the respondents who, faced with myriad such situations would be able to do the same," the court added.

The woman and her children were denied extension of visas only on the ground of the rules permitting such extension only upon proof of marriage being submitted to the authorities and not in the case of a live-in relationship.
The court, while extending the interim order till the FRO took a decision, asked the government to decide the woman's representation within one month.
On another plea by the woman seeking permission to visit her ailing mother in Uzbekistan for Christmas, it asked her to appear before the FRO, which shall consider her request within ten days.