Bombay High Court
Neima Farah Awi vs Union Of India on 2 January, 2026
18-wpst26596-25.doc
vai
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
VASANT
ANANDRAO WRIT PETITION (ST.) NO.26596 OF 2025
IDHOL
Digitally signed Neima Farah Awi ...Petitioner
by VASANT V/s.
ANANDRAO
IDHOL Union of India & Ors. ...Respondents
Date:
2026.01.03
15:44:40 +0530
Mr.Shravan Giri with Mr.Sachin Gosai, Mr.Vinayak Shukla,
Mr.Rajendra Tripathi and Mr.Rohit Deovas i/b Mr.Prabhakar
Tripathi for the Petitioner.
Mr.Ashok S.Gawai, APP for the Respondent - State.
Ms.Yashashree Raut i/b Ms.Manisha Jagtap for the Respondent
Nos.2 and 3 (FRRO).
CORAM : SANDESH D. PATIL, J.
DATE : 2ND JANUARY, 2026.
(VACATION COURT) P.C. :-
1. The present Writ Petition was circulated before the Vacation Court in lieu of an urgency expressed by the Petitioner that the Petitioner would be deported to the country of her origin.1/5 ::: Uploaded on - 03/01/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 09/01/2026 21:33:54 :::
18-wpst26596-25.doc
2. Mr.Giri, learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner states that he is pressing for prayer clause 27 (d), which reads as under :-
"(d). Pending hearing and final disposal of this Petition, stay all deportation proceedings initiated by Respondent No.3 (FRRO Mumbai) against Petitioner and prohibit execution of any deportation order."
3. Learned counsel for the Petitioner states that the Petitioner has not committed any crime, the only allegation against her is that she has over-stayed in India. He states that she has already made an application to United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) and that the moment the application is considered, she will go to the country where the refugee status is given to the Petitioner. He states that it is only on account of the illness of her husband that the Petitioner had come to India. He states that there are eight children depending on the Petitioner and that if the Petitioner is deported to the country of her origin, she will likely to be executed. 2/5 ::: Uploaded on - 03/01/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 09/01/2026 21:33:54 :::
18-wpst26596-25.doc
4. Ms.Yashashree Raut holding for Ms.Manisha Jagtap states that they have filed an affidavit opposing the prayer. The affidavit filed by Ms.Swati Hanumantrao Dhapate working as Immigration Officer, Mumbai states in paragraph 13 of her affidavit that the Petitioner is an Ethiopian national, who had entered India through Indira Gandhi International Airport on 13 th July, 2017 vide passport bearing No.EP4330811 issued on on 28 th December, 2016, valid upto 27 th December, 2021. He further states that the Petitioner entered India on Medical Attendant Sticker Visa in connection with her son Mahamud Seid.
5. Learned counsel for the Respondent Nos.2 and 3 states that the Petitioner and her husband were accompanied by their six children, all of whom are Ethiopian nationals, who entered India on Medical Vivas for treatment at Maxcure Hospital, Hyderabad. She further states that during their stay in India, the Petitioner gave birth to two more children, one in the year 2019 and the other in the year 2024. The details of the children are specified in paragraph 9 at serial Nos.1 to 8 in the affidavit in 3/5 ::: Uploaded on - 03/01/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 09/01/2026 21:33:54 ::: 18-wpst26596-25.doc reply. Learned counsel for the Respondent Nos.2 and 3 further states that when there was drive undertaken by the local police to conduct and detect foreign nationals illegally residing in Mumbai, the Petitioner was found illegally over-staying in India.
6. I have considered the submissions of the parties. The Petitioner had entered India on 13 th July, 2017 having Medical Attendant Visa in connection with her son. The Visa was valid from 9th May, 2017 till 8th November, 2017, as stated by the Respondents in paragraph 13 of the affidavit in reply dated 1 st January, 2026. Even after expiry of Visa, the Petitioner has over- stayed. She has not applied for extension of Visa, nor she had gone back to her country of origin after Visa was expired. It is pertinent to note that it is only when the drive was conducted by local police, they found that the Petitioner was living illegally in India and that she was not an Indian national. The Petitioner thus has been staying illegally in India from 9 th November, 2017. This over-stay is clearly in violation of Section 3(1) of the Immigration of Foreigners Act, 2025. Further as per Section 7 of the said Act, 4/5 ::: Uploaded on - 03/01/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 09/01/2026 21:33:54 ::: 18-wpst26596-25.doc the concerned Authority was duty bound to remove the Petitioners, who were over-staying without valid Visa. As far as the contention of the Petitioner regarding UNHCR Refugee status is concerned, learned counsel for the Respondent on instructions from the officer, who is present in Court, states that UNHCR Refugee card status is not recognized under the Indian Law as India is not a signatory to the 1951 Refugee Convention of 1967 Protocol.
7. In light of the aforesaid submissions, this Court is prima-facie of the opinion that no case is made out for grant of relief in terms of prayer clause 27 (d). The said interim relief is rejected.
8. Place the Petition for further consideration on 13th January, 2026 before the appropriate Court.
(SANDESH D. PATIL, J.) 5/5 ::: Uploaded on - 03/01/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 09/01/2026 21:33:54 :::