JUDGMENT JAYANT PATEL, J. 1. THE present appeal is directed against the order dated 22.11.2007 passed by the Principal Judge, Family Court, Ahmedabad below Ex.17 in Civil Misc. Application No.132 of 2006, whereby the applicant is directed to deposit her passport as well as the passport of her minor child in the Court. 2. THE relevant facts of the case show that the appellant is the mother with the minor child Milind alias Meet. There were divorce proceedings and there are also other proceedings for asserting the right of visitation of the father - respondent herein. It appears that the right of visitation was given to the father and for execution thereof, the proceedings were initiated by the respondent being Civil Misc. Application No. 132 of 2006. In the said proceedings, the notices were issued to the appellant, but she did not remain present, therefore, the matter proceeded ex parte. At that stage, the application Ex.17 was submitted by the respondent herein contending that the visitation is not being permitted by the mother to him and there is apprehension that the mother i.e. respondent therein as well as the minor child may leave the country, therefore, appropriate orders for directing them to deposit their passports be passed. The learned Judge heard the applicant and passed the impugned order, directing the appellant herein to deposit her passport as well as the passport of her minor child. It is under these circumstances, the present appeal before this Court. 3. IT is not that the executing Court has no power to direct for deposit of the passport, nor can it be said that the Court if, in a given case, finds that there is breach or contempt or disobedience of the order and the alleged contempnor is to run away outside the jurisdiction of the Court, the passport cannot be directed to be deposited so as to secure the presence of the party concerned. But at the same time, it deserves to be recorded that directing the parties to the proceedings to deposit the passports is an action, which may require strong and established circumstances of the apprehension on the part of the person seeking such a prayer. The Court, while considering the said aspects, also has to keep in mind the question of liberty and the free movement of any litigant, unless specifically prohibited by any competent forum or authority. 4. The Court, while considering the said aspects, also has to keep in mind the question of liberty and the free movement of any litigant, unless specifically prohibited by any competent forum or authority. 4. IF the facts of the present case are examined, it appears that there were no strong and sufficient circumstances before the Court leading to exercise such power for directing to deposit the passports. Merely because the matter was ex parte, could not be said to be a sole ground for exercising the power. Even if it is considered that there was right of visitation, then also no details have been given in the application about the basis of the apprehension that such right of visitation would be frustrated. No details are given in the application about the date on which the opponent therein and her minor child were to leave the country. Therefore, it appears to us that there were no exceptional circumstances to exercise the power for deposit of the passports, which may ultimately result into curtailing the free movement of any citizen or the litigant before the Court. However, at the same time, the party who is facing the proceedings, cannot be heard to say that he or she shall not cooperate in the proceedings, either by himself/herself or through his/ her authorized Advocate. 5. MR. Gandhi, learned Counsel appearing for the appellant, has declared before us that the appellant either herself or through her authorized Advocate, shall remain present at every stage in the proceedings of Civil Misc. Application No. 132 of 2006. 6. WE find that such declaration would meet with the ends of justice and would enable the Court to further examine the matter in accordance with law and there will not be any impediment for absence of the appellant or her authorized Advocate. In view of the aforesaid, the impugned order passed by the learned Family Court Judge below Ex.17 is quashed and set aside with the direction that the appellant, either herself or through her authorized Advocate, shall remain present in the proceedings of Civil Misc. Application No. 132 of 2006. As the passports are already deposited pending the appeal, upon the undertaking being furnished by the appellant to remain present, either herself or through her authorized Advocate at every stage of proceedings of Civil Misc. Application, No. 132 of 2006, the same shall be returned to her. 7. Application No. 132 of 2006. As the passports are already deposited pending the appeal, upon the undertaking being furnished by the appellant to remain present, either herself or through her authorized Advocate at every stage of proceedings of Civil Misc. Application, No. 132 of 2006, the same shall be returned to her. 7. THE appeal is allowed to the aforesaid extent. No order as to costs. (APJ) (Appeal allowed)