[ad_1]
Express News Service
CHENNAI: The Aadhaar card, driver's license, marriage registration document and even ID card do not confer Indian citizenship to persons belonging to D & # … 39 other nations, unless the competent authority The Court ruled. Judge T Raja made her decision by dismissing a divorce petition from Divya, daughter of a Sri Lankan woman, Jayanthi, who was detained at Anna International Airport on July 19. Jayanthi, a Sri Lankan national, migrated to Tamil Nadu due to the ethnic problem in 1989. She studied the SSLC in Tamil Nadu in 1991 and married a Premkumar, an Indian citizen, on April 21, 1992. The marriage has been correctly registered. She was blessed with three children. She had obtained an Aadhaar card, a driver's license and even a voter ID card
She applied for a pbadport in 2004 and went to Italy in 2007 to work there as a maid. She often returned to India and stayed in Tamil Nadu for a few days before returning to Italy. The immigration authorities in India have never been a problem for him. While she was returning from Italy and arriving in Chennai on June 22 to attend her daughter 's wedding in Tiruchy, she was detained by the authorities of Arignar Anna International Airport on the grounds that she was not married. she fraudulently obtained an Indian pbadport because she was a Sri Lankan national by birth. The authorities also concluded that she held a Sri Lankan pbadport issued on October 12, 1989, which expired on October 11, 1994.
Allegating that she repressed the facts, the authorities denied her Entered India and sent it to Sri Lanka on 23 June. But as she claimed to be Indian, the Sri Lankan authorities sent her back to India the same day. Once again, on June 24, she was sent back to Sri Lanka by the Indian authorities. However, the Sri Lankan immigration authority has not granted permission to arrive in Jayanthi and has asked Indian immigration to send her back to Sri Lanka. Lanka on the basis of a valid emergency travel document issued by the Sri Lankan High Commission in Chennai. , the Sri Lanka Deputy High Commission has been informed to issue an emergency travel document to facilitate its return to Sri Lanka. Subsequently, on June 24, the Regional Aliens Registration Officer ordered Chennai to restrict his movements under the Aliens Act 1946. Divya complained to the High Court with this request for direction to the authorities to take it up. mother of detention and allow her to return to Italy and rejoin her job.
ASG argued that the petition was unfounded because it was full of lies. On 22 June last, the applicant 's mother, Jayanthi, arrived from Milan on an Air India flight No. IA – 142 and approached the airport' s immigration. Chennai for the arrival authorization. Since she had fraudulently obtained an Indian pbadport, because she was of Sri Lankan nationality and her real name was Sayanthi Anandarajah, she does not have the right to pretend that she is an Indian citizen. . In addition, the Sri Lankan pbadport No. J0696001 was issued on October 12, 1989, which expired on October 11, 1994 in Colombo on behalf of Sayanthi Anandarajah. This was found in the survey. As the petitioner had unintentionally repressed the above-mentioned fact in the petition, it could be dismissed on the grounds that she did not approach this court with clean hands, argued that 39; ASG.
Accept the arguments of the ASG that he found all the merits in his arguments. A reading of Jayanthi's original pbadport clearly showed that the Sri Lankan government issued the said pbadport, mentioning that the petitioner's mother Jayanthi was born in Jaffna on 7 December 1973 and that her national status was Sri Lankan. Therefore, the claimant's allegation that, under section 5 (1) (c) of the Citizenship Act, her mother must be treated as an Indian, is far from the point of view of her husband. to be accepted.
"Inadmissible"
The reading of Jayanthi's original pbadport made it clear that the Sri Lankan government had issued the said pbadport, stating that the applicant's mother Jayanthi was born in Jaffna on December 7, 1973, and his national status was Sri Lankan. Therefore, the Applicant's allegation that, under the Citizenship Act, her mother must be treated as an Indian, is far from being accepted.
Source link
