Page No.# 1/ vs Smti Rani Kumari Gupta
2026 Latest Caselaw 391 Gua

Gauhati High Court

Page No.# 1/ vs Smti Rani Kumari Gupta on 28 January, 2026

Author: Manish Choudhury

Bench: Manish Choudhury

                                                                           Page No.# 1/10


GAHC010283052025




                                                                       2026:GAU-AS:1305


                              THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
   (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)


                                  Case No. : Crl.Pet./1640/2025


            BIKKY CHAUDHARY
            S/O SRI RABINDRA KUMAR CHAUDHARY, R/O VILL TIKRIKILLA, P.O AND
            P.S- TIKRIKILLA, DIST- WEST GARO HILLS, MEGHALAYA


            VERSUS


            SMTI RANI KUMARI GUPTA
            D/O SRI RAM BABU PRASAD AND SMTI TARA DEVI PRASAD, R/O
            HATISAR, P.O- DEOSIRI, P.S- RUNIKHATA, DIST- CHIRANG, ASSAM, PIN
            CODE- 783375


Advocate for the Petitioner   : MR. D NANDI, MR. A NANDI,MS P SARMAH

Advocate for the Respondent : ,

                                    BEFORE
                   HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MANISH CHOUDHURY

                                          JUDGMENT

28.01.2026

Heard Mr. D. Nandi, learned counsel for the petitioner.

Page No.# 2/10

2. This criminal petition under Section 528, Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita [BNSS], 2023 is preferred seeking quashing of two proceedings, Misc. Case no. 105/2024 and D.V.C.R. Case no. 02/2025, presently pending before the Court of learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bongaigaon, Assam ['the Trial Court', for short], between the petitioner and the respondent.

3. The proceeding of Misc. Case no. 105/2024 has been initiated by the respondent under Section 144, BNSS, 2023 seeking monthly maintenance allowance from the petitioner for the respondent and her minor child.

4. The proceedings of D.V.C.R. Case no. 02/2025 is initiated by the respondent by filing an application under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 ['the D.V. Act', for short] against the petitioner and five other family members/relatives of the petitioner seeking various reliefs under Section 18, Section 19, Section 20 and Section 21 of the D.V. Act.

5. In the application filed under Section 144, BNSS as well as in the application filed under Section 12 of the D.V. Act, the respondent has stated that the marriage between the petitioner and the respondent was solemnised on 05.06.2023 at Siliguri as per Hindu rights and customs. After marriage, the spouses started living together in the matrimonial house at Village - Tikrikilla, District - West Garo Hills, Meghalaya. The respondent has further mentioned that in the month of May, 2024, a girl child was born to the petitioner and the respondent. The respondent has alleged that since after the marriage, the petitioner and his family members had inflicted cruelty, both mental and physical, upon the respondent. Finally on 28.06.2024, the petitioner and his family members drove the respondent and her minor daughter out from the matrimonial house.

6. On institution of the two proceedings before the Court of learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bongaigaon, Assam ['the Trial Court', for short], notices were issued to the petitioner in Misc. Case no. 105/2024 to the petitioner in both the cases and also to his other family members, who have been arrayed as respondents in D.V.C.R. Case no. 02/2025.

Page No.# 3/10

7. Upon receipt of notices, the petitioner in Misc. Case no. 105/2024 filed a petition under Section 145, BNSS raising a ground that the Trial Court at Bongaigaon did not have the territorial jurisdiction to try the petition under Section 145, BNSS. The said petition, filed on 29.04.2025 was numbered as Petition no. 1553/2025.

8. Similarly, in D.V.C.R. Case no. 02/2025, filed on 02.05.2025, the respondents including the petitioner as the respondent no. 1, filed a petition, Petition no. 1609/2025 stating that the Trial Court at Bongaigaon did not have the territorial jurisdiction under Section 27 of the D.V. Act to adjudicate the application filed by the respondent as the aggrieved person seeking various reliefs under D.V. Act.

9. The common ground asserted in Petition no. 1553/2025 and Petition no. 1609/2025 as regards the Trial Court's lack of territorial jurisdiction was that the marriage between the petitioner and the respondent was solemnised at Siliguri, West Bengal and after marriage, they last resided together at Village - Tikrikilla, District - West Garo Hills, Meghalaya. It was further mentioned that after the respondent left the matrimonial house, she started residing in her parental house with her mother at Village - Hatisar, Police Station - Basugaon, District

- Chirang, Assam. But, while instituting both the proceedings, the respondent had falsely mentioned the residential address of her sister at Bongaigaon, District - Bongaigaon, Assam as her place of residence to file the cases before the Trial Court.

10. The Trial Court in its Order dated 20.09.2025 passed in connection with Petition no. 1553/2025 has observed that from the materials on record, it would appear prima facie that the petitioner therein, that is, the respondent herein had started residing with her elder sister at Bongaigaon and therefore, the Trial Court would have the jurisdiction to proceed with the proceeding under Section 144, BNSS. The Trial Court has further observed that the question as to whether the petitioner had actually resided at Bongaigaon or that she had just mentioned the address at Bogaigaon falsely only to file the case at Bogaigaon would be a triable issue.

Page No.# 4/10

11. In respect of Petition no. 1609/2025 filed in D.V.C.R. Case no. 02/2025, the Trial Court has observed similarly in its Order dated 20.09.2025.

12. The Trial Court while considering the Petition no. 1553/2025 had considered the provisions of Section 144 and Section 145, BNSS.

13. In connection with Petition no. 1609/2025 in D.V.C.R. Case no. 02/2025, the Trial Court had taken into consideration the provisions of Section 27 of the DV Act.

14. It has also been contended on behalf of the petitioner that the petitioner had instituted a proceeding in the form of Matrimonial Suit no. 15/2024 under Section 13[1][ia] of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 seeking for a decree of dissolution of the marriage and by a Judgment and Order dated 19.09.2025, passed ex-parte, the Court of learned District Judge, Tura, Mehalaya had dissolved the marriage between the petitioner and the respondent by a decree of divorce. It is also the contention of the petitioner that the elder sister of the respondent viz. Smti. Beauty Kumari Gupta had instituted a proceeding under Section 13[b] of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 as the petitioner no. 1 before the Court of learned Additional District Judge, First Court, Siliguri in July, 2025 for a decree of divorce on mutual consent for dissolution of her marriage, solemnised on 24.07.2015, with the petitioner no. 2 therein viz. Sri Rabindra Kumar Ray. The said application under Section 13[b] of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 has been registered as Mat. Suit no. 181/2025 and in the said petition, Smti. Beauty Kumari Gupta had mentioned her address at Village - Hatisar, Post Office - Deorisiri, Police Station - Runikhata, District - Chirang, Assam. With such projections, the petitioner has submitted that when the elder sister of the petitioner has been residing in District - Chirang, the respondent herein could not have instituted the two proceedings in the Trial Court at Bongaigaon, District - Bongaigaon, Assam as she is the permanent resident of District - Chirang, Assam.

15. Section 144, BNSS is akin to the provision of Section 125, Code of Criminal Procedure ['the CrPC' or 'the Code', for short]. Section 144, BNSS has provided for a summary remedy to a wife, who is unable to maintain herself and its primary object is to prevent destitution and Page No.# 5/10

vagrancy.

16. Section 145, BNSS has provided for the procedural framework for the maintenance proceeding initiated under Section 144, BNSS. For ready reference, Section 145, BNSS is quoted herein :-

145. Procedure.--

[1] Proceedings under section 144 may be taken against any person in any district-- [a] where he is; or [b] where he or his wife resides; or [c] where he last resided with his wife, or as the case may be, with the mother of the illegitimate child; or [d] where his father or mother resides.

[2] All evidence in such proceedings shall be taken in the presence of the person against whom an order for payment of maintenance is proposed to be made, or, when his personal attendance is dispensed with, in the presence of his advocate, and shall be recorded in the manner prescribed for summons-cases :

Provided that if the Magistrate is satisfied that the person against whom an order for payment of maintenance is proposed to be made is wilfully avoiding service, or willfully neglecting to attend the Court, the Magistrate may proceed to hear and determine the case ex parte and any order so made may be set aside for good cause shown on an application made within three months from the date thereof subject to such terms including terms as to payment of costs to the opposite party as the Magistrate may think just and proper.

[3] The Court in dealing with applications under section 144 shall have power to make such order as to costs as may be just.

17. The only difference between Section 145[1], BNSS and Section 126[1], CrPC is that sub-clause [d] has been added in Section 145, BNSS for enabling a father or a mother to institute a proceeding for maintenance at the place of their residence. Other than the newly Page No.# 6/10

added Clause [d], the other part of Section 145[1], BNSS is similarly worded like Section 125[1], CrPC.

18. Section 27 of the D.V. Act has dealt with the issue of jurisdiction and Section 27 reads as under :-

27. Jurisdiction

[1] The Court of Judicial Magistrate of the first class or the Metropolitan Magistrate, as the case may be, within the local limits of which [a] the person aggrieved permanently or temporarily resides or carries on business or is employed; or [b] the respondent resides or carries on business or is employed; or [c] the cause of action has arisen, shall be the competent Court to grant a protection order and other orders under this Act and to try offences under this Act.

[2] Any order made under this Act shall be enforceable throughout India.

19. In the applications filed under the Section 144, BNSS and Section 12 of the DV Act, the respondent herein has asserted that after she was driven out of her matrimonial home on 28.06.2024, she returned back to her parental home at first. As her father is a paralysed person and her mother is an old and sick woman, she was compelled to take shelter at her elder sister's house at Bongaigaon along with her minor daughter. After 28.06.2024, there was neither any effort from her husband to take her neither back to the matrimonial home nor he had provided any maintenance to her till the filing of the applications before the Trial Court at Bongaigaon.

20. The proceeding under Section 144, BNSS was instituted in December, 2024 whereas the proceeding under Section 12 of the D.V. Act was initiated in early part of January, 2025. It transpires that the petition under Section 13[b] of the Hindu Marriage Act was filed by the elder sister of the petitioner on 19.07.2025. In Mat. Suit no. 15/2024, the District Judge, Tura Page No.# 7/10

had observed that the notice to the respondent no. 2 was sent twice by registered post to an address, Care of Shri Ram Babu Prasad, Resident of Hatisar F.V., Post Office - Runikhata & Police Station - Basugaon, District - Chirang, Assam and despite receipt of the notice, the respondent did not appear in the proceeding and therefore, the suit had to proceed ex-parte against the respondent.

21. The Trial Court while deciding the issue of territorial jurisdiction to try and adjudicate the applications under Section 144, BNSS and Section 12 of the D.V. Act has found prima facie that it has territorial jurisdiction to try and adjudicate the applications under Section 145, BNSS [earlier, Section 126, CrPC] and Section 27 of the D.V. Act.

22. The law is well settled that a wife can make a claim for maintenance under different statutes and there is no bar to seek maintenance both under Section 27 of the D.V. Act and Section 144, BNSS [earlier, Section 125, CrPC]. Observing the fact that there are overlapping jurisdiction under various statutes, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Rajnesh vs. Neha and another, [2021] 2 SCC 324, has observed that if maintenance is awarded to the wife in a previously instituted proceeding, she is under a legal obligation to disclose the same in a subsequent proceeding for maintenance, which may be filed under another enactment. While deciding the quantum of maintenance in the subsequent proceeding, the concerned Court shall take into account the maintenance awarded in any previously instituted proceeding and determine the maintenance payable to claimant. To overcome the issue of overlapping jurisdiction and to avoid conflicting orders being passed in different proceedings, the Supreme Court has directed that in a subsequent maintenance proceeding, the applicant shall disclose the previous maintenance proceeding and the orders passed therein, so that the court in the subsequent proceeding can take into consideration the maintenance already awarded in the previous proceeding, and grant an adjustment or set-off of the said amount. While passing such direction, the Supreme Court has taken into consideration that the proceedings under Section 125, CrPC is a separate proceeding from the proceeding under Section 12 of the D.V. Act and there are, however, overlapping jurisdiction.

23. There has been clear statement in the application under Section 144, BNSS as well as Page No.# 8/10

in the application under Section 12 of the DV Act that after being driven out from the matrimonial home, the respondent was compelled to take shelter in the house of her elder sister for the reasons mentioned therein and alluded hereinabove.

24. In Darshan Kumari [Smt.] vs. Surinder Kumar, 1995 Supp [4] SCC 137, the appellant was a divorcee from the respondent. The appellant in her application for maintenance under Section 125 read with Section 126 of the CrPC filed before the Court of learned Magistrate, Nuh made a categorical statement that she had been residing with her brother at Nuh. The High Court and the Magistrate where the matter of residence was challenged and consequently, the territorial jurisdiction had reached a conclusion that the appellant was not residing at Nuh because, according to the respondent, Nuh was not her permanent place of residence. The Supreme Court had observed that Section 126, CrPC required that the proceeding under Section 125, CrPC could be taken against any person in any district where he or his wife had resided. Section 126, CrPC did not require permanent residence at the said place. Even a temporary residence, so long as it was not casual, was sufficient to confer jurisdiction on the Magistrate at that place or of the district concerned. The Supreme Court had observed that the findings of the Magistrate was incorrect. It was held that the appellant was entitled to prosecute the application in the Court of learned Magistrate at Nuh where, as per the averment made in the application, the appellant was residing.

25. The provisions of Section 27 of the D.V. Act, came up for consideration in Shyamlal Devda and others vs. Parimala, [2020] 3 SCC 14. The matrimonial home of the spouses therein was at Chennai. With regard to jurisdiction under Section 27 of the D.V. Act, the Supreme Court has observed as under :-

11. A plain reading of the above provision makes it clear that the petition under the Domestic Violence Act can be filed in a court where the 'person aggrieved' permanently or temporarily resides or carries on business or is employed. In the present case, the respondent is residing with her parents within the territorial limits of Metropolitan Magistrate Court, Bengaluru. In view of Section 27[1][a] of the Act, the Metropolitan Page No.# 9/10

Magistrate Court, Bengaluru has the jurisdiction to entertain the complaint and take cognizance of the offence. There is no merit in the contention raising objection as to the jurisdiction of the Metropolitan Magistrate Court at Bengaluru.

26. The decision in Krishna Lal Chawla and others vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and another, [2021] 5 SCC 435, relied on by the learned counsel for petitioner, is with regard to frivolous or vexatious complaints and is found to be of no assistance to the case of the petitioner.

27. In view of the position laid down clearly in the afore-mentioned decisions that a wife can institute [i] the proceeding under Section 144, BNSS at a place where she temporarily resides and [ii] the proceeding under Section 12 of the D.V. Act also at a place where she temporarily resides, I find no infirmity either in the Order dated 20.09.2025 passed by the Trial Court in Misc. Case no. 105/2024 or in the Order dated 20.09.2025 passed in D.V.C.R. Case no. 02/2025, in view of the categorical assertion of the respondent that she has been residing at Bongaigaon, even if temporarily, taking shelter in her elder sister's house.

28. It is settled that a disputed questions of fact need not be gone in a criminal petition under Section 528, BNSS. Therefore, the contention raised by the petitioner that the respondent does not temporarily reside within a jurisdiction of the Trial Court can, at best, be a triable issue, as has already been observed by the Trial Court, and it would be open for the petitioner to lead evidence on that aspect and the respondent to establish about her residence, be it temporary, at Bongaigaon in the course of the proceedings of Misc. Case no. 105/2024 and D.V.C.R. Case no. 02/2025.

29. The proceedings under Section 144, BNSS and Section 12 of the D.V. Act are separate proceedings and as such, orders passed separately in the two proceedings are required to be challenged separately and as such, the maintainability of the criminal petition is, in the considered view of this Court, questionable. Be that as it may. The question is not gone into in this case and is left open for decision in an appropriate case because for the reasons, discussed above, the challenges made on the grounds urged are found to be without merits.

Page No.# 10/10

30. Consequently, this criminal petition is bereft of merit and being bereft of merit, it is one which is not to be entertained. Resultantly, the criminal petition is dismissed.

JUDGE

Comparing Assistant