Maryvonne Pierrette Jourdan v. Union Of India
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 03.11.2025
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.DHANDAPANI Maryvonne Pierrette Jourdan ... Petitioner Vs.
1.Union of India Rep. by its Secretary, Ministry of External Affairs, South Block, New Delhi.
2.Foreigners Regional Registration Officer, Bureau of Immigration Ministry of Home Affirs Shastri Bhawan Annexe Building 26 Haddows Road, Nungambakkam, Chennai - 600 006.
... Respondents Prayer:
Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a Writ of Declaration declaring the action of the respondents in denying entry to the petitioner inside India when she is having a valid X-1 Visa bearing No.VK8467040 and travelling on passport bearing Ref.No.18EK81529 issued by the Republic of France, as illegal and arbitrary and consequently direct the respondents to permit the petitioner inside India.
1/6
For Petitioner : Mr.T.Sai Krishnan For Respondents : Mr.V.T.Balaji Senior Panel Counsel
O R D E R
The petitioner has filed this writ petition seeking issuance of Writ of Declaration declaring the action of the respondents in denying entry to the petitioner inside India when she is having a valid X-1 Visa bearing No.VK8467040 and travelling on passport bearing Ref.No.18EK81529 issued by the Republic of France, as illegal and arbitrary and consequently direct the respondents to permit the petitioner inside India.
2.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is a French National and she also holds the passport issued by the Republic of France. She married one Roger Marcel Raymond Troussier who is a French National and out of the said wedlock, she is having a daughter namely, Aude Marina Troussier and the petitioner got divorce during the year 2015. The petitioner's daughter got married to one Sedhuraman who is of Indian Origin and is residing in Puducherry. The petitioner has been visiting India every year from 2009 on tourist visa with multiple entry facility till 2019 and 2/6
used to stay along with her daughter in her residence at Puducherry. During the year 2019, the petitioner developed relationship with one Sathish and married him and also registered the marriage with the District Registrar, Puducherry on 16.09.2029 and stayed in India till 19.09.2019 and thereafter left to France.
3.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner applied for ('X') Visa and she was issued with X - 1 visa on 20.11.2019 with multiple entry facility and the said visa is valid for a period of five years upto 19.11.2024. Thereafter she travelled to India on 21.01.2020 and registered with the second respondent through online and stayed in India till 22.11.2021 and left India on 23.11.2021 after obtaining due exit permit from the second respondent on 15.11.2021. Whileso, during the month of April, 2022, the petitioner decided to join her husband at India and travelled to India on 28.04.2022 at 2.30 p.m., however, the Immigration Officials denied her entry inside India and asked her to return back to France. Hence, the petitioner sent mail dated 20.06.2022 to the second respondent to disclose the reason for denial of her entry inside India, however, there is no response.
3/6
4.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner further submitted that this Court may, without going into the merits of the case, permit the petitioner to apply for tourist visa instead of X - 1 visa and issue direction to the respondents to consider the said application and to pass appropriate orders.
5.The learned Senior Panel Counsel appearing for the respondents submitted that the petitioner intentionally married an Indian National who is 35 years younger than the petitioner which indicates that the said marriage is a marriage of convenience for prolonging the stay of the petitioner in India to obtain OCI Card. Hence, the second respondent initiated black listing of the petitioner on 08.12.2021 and the petitioner was black listed and was refused to enter India on 28.04.2022. He further submitted that if any application for tourist visa is received from the petitioner, the same would be considered by the respondents in accordance with law and appropriate orders will be passed.
6.In view of the above, this Court without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, permits the petitioner to apply for 4/6
tourist visa, within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. If any such application is made by the petitioner, the respondents shall consider the same, on merits and in accordance with law and pass appropriate orders, within a period of four weeks thereafter.
7.The writ petition is disposed of. No costs. 03.11.2025 pri Index: Yes/ No Speaking Order: Yes/ No NCC: Yes/ No To 1.Union of India Rep. by its Secretary, Ministry of External Affairs, South Block, New Delhi.
2.Foreigners Regional Registration Officer, Bureau of Immigration Ministry of Home Affirs Shastri Bhawan Annexe Building 26 Haddows Road, Nungambakkam, Chennai - 600 006.
5/6
M.DHANDAPANI,J.
pri 03.11.2025 6/6