Diplomat issue

philip Richard, the husband of Sangeeta Richard, worked as a driver with the embassy of Mozambique in Delhi and had approached US-based Indian diplomat Devyani Khobragade for a job for his wife, saying “they needed money for their children’s education.”
However, Philip would later allege his wife “was being treated as a slave and as a person in bondage”. He filed a petition that included these allegations before the high court here this July. This was after a police report (FIR) filed by Khobragade at the Mehrauli (in south Delhi) police station on July 2.
He later withdrew the petition, after the HC said it was not maintainable. This sequence is revealed in a petition filed in the HC by Khobragade after the maid’s disappearance from her house in June. Business Standard has reviewed a copy of the petition.
When spoken to over the telephone, in her first reaction, Khobragade told Business Standard from New York that she was “really thankful for all your (India’s) support and words can’t be enough to describe this. At this moment, I won’t be able to comment further”. She referred further queries to her lawyer, who was not available for comment.
Philip, who lived in Mehrauli’s Sultanpur locality, is said to have joined his wife in the US recently, days before Devyani’s arrest in the US. Sangeeta Richard did not answer a call made to her US mobile telephone. Richa Kapoor, who is representing the ministry of external affairs (MEA) in the case, said: “The government would file its response before the next date.” The case will come up on February 5.
RIVAL ALLEGATIONS ON A NANNY
Nov 23,’12: Ibda (India based domestic assistant) agreement between Khobragade and Sangeeta Richard at New Delhi
Nov-Dec ‘12: Both leave for New York on ticket given by MEA
Mar ‘13: Richard expresses her desire to work outside on off days; Devyani refuses citing legal issues Jun 18,’13: Richard visits Devyani’s office (Consulate General of India) for first time; expresses wish to stay out at night and work
Jun 21-23,’13: Devyani on a weekend trip to New Jersey; returns to find maid missing, unreachable over phone
Jun 25,’13: Devyani reports incident to local police, MEA; No action as complaint can only be filed by family
Jun 28,’13: Philip says Sangeeta had contacted him but refuses to share her whereabouts
Jul 2,’13: Devyani gets call from unknown people offering to negotiate a settlemen; files FIR against Philip in Mehrauli police station
Jul 8,’13: Demand made for $ 10,000 , an ordinary Indian passport and immigration relief
Jul 9,’13: India revokes official passport and notifies US government; seek revocation of visa, repatriation
Describing the circumstances of the maid’s appointment, Khobragade’s petition had said the couple had approached her. They’d said the husband did not have a job and Sangeeta “expressed her desire and willingness to accompany the plaintiff (Devyani) to New York as her domestic help to take care of …household work and children”.
The petition says it was agreed between the couple and the diplomat on November 23, 2012, that Sangeeta “will go to the US with the plaintiff as a India Based Domestic Assistant (Ibda), to be employed at or in connection with the employer’s residence”.
The maid and her employer flew together on “an air ticket given by MEA…for her status as Ibda”. Sangeeta was in charge of the kitchen, baby sitting and other domestic work and was the only adult in the diplomat’s home between 9 am and 7 pm.
Things went well for a few months. Trouble seems to have started around mid-March, when Sangeeta asked if she could “work outside on her off day”. Khobragade is said to have told her that her Ibda status did not allow her to work outside and would be a violation of her visa terms and local laws.
By mid-June, Sangeeta allegedly told her employer she was getting bored and would prefer to stay outside in the night. She also wanted to work but was again informed that this would be illegal.
By Khobragade’s account, the maid had a relatively comfortable life in New York. She had all modern domestic gadgets at her disposal and used to visit a friend named ‘Maggie’ at a nearby beauty parlour on her off day. She also did not miss her Sunday at church.
Sangeeta “was at liberty to use and was in fact using the residential phone of the plaintiff to talk to her family in Delhi regularly”, says the petition.