Even after acquittal in a misappropriation case filed by her daughter-in-law, a US-based woman did not get her passport back. Apart from a fortune in legal expenses, she had to agree to the extreme conditions of a court order .
VIMLA PATEL, a US citizen, was keen that her son Jitendra marry a woman from India. Her husband Ajit concurred, assuming that a daughter-in-law from an alien culture may not fit in with the typical Indian family values they cherished. In 1992, they brought in Sonal into their household as Jitendra's wife.
They never imagined that millennia-old family values would be destroyed in a matter of decades. One day, Sonal decided that she could not stand her in-laws and returned to her maternal house in the suburbs of Ahmedabad. Her parents got hold of a good lawyer to advise them on shaking the hell out of her in-laws. Sonal lodged a complaint in the city alleging that her in-laws had misappropriated her jewellery. The Patels, who were residing in the US, were forced to come to the city after court warrants were issued to them.
Sonal succeeded in getting the court to confiscate their property. The court however, granted them bail, making yet another lawyer rich in the process. They had to surrender their passports as a condition for the bail. After the couple had a good taste of the Indian judicial system, a metropolitan court acquitted both of them in mid-July 2008.
The travails of the Patels didn't stop there. After being acquitted, Vimla submitted an application before the metropolitan magistrate court for the return of her passport. She was required to furnish the reason why she wanted what rightly belonged to her. She pleaded that she had to visit her ailing mother in the US. But, her application was rejected, as he court claimed it had no power to review its own order. They were told that once the final order was passed, the question of passing another order to return the passport did not arise.
Appearing on behalf of the Patels, another lawyer submitted to the High Court that Vimla would file an affidavit to the effect that she would be returning to India (although she is a US citizen). It even stated that as soon as she gets back after a period of four months, she would make herself available if her presence was required in the court. The honourable magistrate's court would also be informed of her whereabouts in the US and satisfy it by furnishing proof!
Finally their passport was returned as the High Court directed the trial court to comply with the conditions. The Court authorised the magistrate to be satisfied with the US address and a detailed itinerary. One hopes Vimla and family will not end up in a mental asylum by the time they are completely free of harassment, if at all. For, the case is destined to wind its way up through umpteen courts in appeals/counter-appeals.