Kolkata, The Calcutta High Court on Wednesday held that: A practical reader guide

2026, local bodies can levy user fees on waste generators: A practical reader guide

Kolkata, The Calcutta High Court on Wednesday held that the immigration authorities rightly refused entry of the Bangladeshi wife of an Indian national into India for having obtained documents by fraudulent means.

He argued that the immigration authorities refused entry to the wife without any reason. Alleging non-consideration of a representation to the immigration authorities seeking entry of the wife into India, the petition was filed. The authorities stated that despite being a Bangladeshi citizen, Chowdhury obtained Indian documents like a voter card and PAN card by way of fraudulent means. They clarified that in view of this, Chowdhury’s entry into India was not allowed. This article was generated from an automated news agency feed without modifications to text.

The petitioner, an Indian citizen, made a representation on September 5, praying for his wife, a Bangladeshi national, and minor son to be allowed to enter India. The court noted that following marriage, the wife used to visit India via a multiple-entry X-I visa as the spouse of the Indian national and the last visa granted to her was on September 25, 2025, valid till September 24, 2026. The Foreigners’ Registration Office filed a report stating that Srabanti Chowdhury, the wife of petitioner Prodip Bose, is a Bangladeshi national holding a passport valid till September 7, 2027. The lawyer for the authorities stated that entry of a person into India can be restricted under the provisions of the Immigration and Foreigners’ Act, 2025.

The wife went to Bangladesh in April 2026, and while returning to India, she was refused entry due to immigration reasons on August 23.

Observing that the entry into India of the petitioner’s wife was “rightly refused” by the immigration authorities, Justice Krishna Rao dismissed a petition by him seeking direction to allow her to enter India to join her husband.

The petitioner husband’s lawyer stated before the court that the wife sometimes resides in India and sometimes in Bangladesh.