Driven Out, But Not Denied Justice: Calcutta HC Expands DV Act Jurisdiction to Temporary Shelters

In a victim-centric ruling that prioritizes protection over procedural hurdles, the Calcutta High Court has held that a woman forced to flee her matrimonial home can invoke the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (DV Act) in the court nearest her temporary refuge. Justice Dr. Ajoy Kumar Mukherjee set aside a Sessions Court order returning the wife's application for lack of territorial jurisdiction, affirming the Magistrate's decision and allowing proceedings to continue in Kolkata.

From Dowry Demands to Desperate Refuge: The Couple's Fractured Journey

Rani Bibi married Sk. Nurullah in 2013 under Islamic rites. She alleges relentless cruelty, dowry harassment, and neglect despite sufficient payments from her side. Starved of food and support, she left the matrimonial home with their minor son, renting a room at 15 Imad Ali Lane in Kolkata's Taltala area under a leave-and-license agreement. This shelter, near her relatives, became her base for a March 2020 FIR under Sections 498A, 406, 506, and 34 IPC at Taltala Women PS.

In MISCN Case No. 23 of 2020 before the 11th Metropolitan Magistrate, Calcutta, Rani sought protection (Section 17), residence (Section 18), maintenance (Section 20), custody (Section 21), and compensation (Section 22). The Magistrate, on July 14, 2022, upheld jurisdiction under Section 27 DV Act, citing her temporary residence. But the husband appealed successfully to the City Sessions Court, which on August 22, 2022, deemed Kolkata a "fleeing address" linked to her Purba Medinipur roots, ordering the plaint returned. Rani then filed Criminal Revision (CRR) 3472 of 2022.

Wife's Arsenal: Documents and Daily Realities vs Husband's Fraud Claims

Rani's counsel, Apalak Basu, argued her Kolkata stay was genuine post-ejection, backed by Aadhaar card (issued March 17, 2020), voter ID, ration card, driving license, councillor's residence certificate (October 30, 2019), and the 2021 rental agreement. Court notices, Domestic Incident Report, charge sheet, and even the husband's letters reached her there. Even her paternal home would qualify, per Rupali Devi v. State of UP (2019) 5 SCC 384. No prejudice to the husband was shown, and the DV Act demands liberal interpretation for victims, as in Akankha Arora v. Tanaya Maben (2024 SCC Online SC 3688). Revision under Section 482 CrPC was maintainable to secure justice.

The husband, via Anupam Kumar Bhattacharya, countered: Kolkata was a sham to dodge Medinipur courts. The FIR complaint (March 12, 2020) and registration predated the rental agreement; Aadhaar seemed tailored to the FIR date; the certificate predated the agreement fraudulently. Voter rolls tied her to Purba Medinipur. Citing Sarad Kumar Pandey v. Mamta Pandey (2010 DMC 600 Del) and P. Pathmanathan v. V. Monica (2021 SCC Online Mad 8731), he called DV proceedings civil, fit for Article 227, not Section 482.

Unpacking 'Temporary Residence' and the Shadow of Economic Abuse

Justice Mukherjee first affirmed Section 482 CrPC's reach, invoking Supreme Court precedent in Sourabh Kumar Tripathi v. Vidhi Rawal (2025 SCC Online SC 1158). DV proceedings are civil-dominant but quashable under Section 482's second limb to curb abuse or secure justice. The return order wasn't interlocutory, per Amar Nath v. State of Haryana (1997) 4 SCC 137.

On merits, Section 27 allows filing where the aggrieved temporarily resides or cause arises. Borrowing from Sarad Kumar Pandey , "temporary residence" means a compelled dwelling post-violence—not a hotel or fleeting visit—but a continuing abode. Rani's documents, notice services, and Protection Officer records confirmed this; no mini-trial was warranted.

Crucially, her pleas of penury—husband's remarriage and zero support despite income—spelled "economic abuse" under Section 3(iv), a continuing wrong ( Prabin Kumar Ghosh v. Jharna Ghosh , 2016 (2) Cal LJ 154). This recurrent deprivation rooted jurisdiction in Kolkata, independent of shared household continuity.

The Sessions Court erred in technical nitpicking, ignoring the DV Act's remedial ethos.

Key Observations

"A temporary residence, therefore, must be a temporary dwelling place of the person who has for the time being decided to make the place as his home... this cannot be considered a place where the person has gone on a casual visit, or a fleeing visit... or simply for the purpose of filing case." — Citing Delhi HC in Sarad Kumar Pandey .

"If economic abuse is evident... such economic abuse continues from day to day, the aggrieved person... would be entitled to institute proceeding under section 12 of the Act."

"The non-obstinate clause further makes it clear that the words ‘otherwise to secure the ends of justice’ are wide enough to justify interference with an improper order in appropriate cases."

Justice Restored: Proceedings Back on Track, Precedent for the Vulnerable

CRR 3472 of 2022 stands allowed. The Sessions order is set aside; the Magistrate's July 14, 2022, ruling revived. As other reports note, this reinforces a "victim-centric approach," ensuring technicalities don't derail relief. Future cases may lean on this for swift access where women rebuild amid ongoing economic strife, advancing the DV Act's promise of immediate safeguards.