Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
Dr. Ajoy Kumar Mukherjee, J.
Rani Bibi – Petitioner
versus
Sk. Nurullah and Ors. – Opp. Parties
CRR 3472 of 2022
Decided on 18.2.2026

Advocates:
Counsel for the Parties:
For the Petitioner: Mr. Apalak Basu, Mr. Rahul Singh, Mr. Subham Kanjilal, Ms. Sarnali Gupta
For the Opp. Parties: Mr. Anupam Kumar Bhattacharya, Mr. Amit Chowdhury, Mr. Mrityunjoy Saha

IMPORTANT POINTS
(1) Inherent Jurisdiction – To secure ends of justice is much more than to decide case on legal points.
(2) Domestic violence – Petition under DV Act can be filed in a court where person aggrieved permanently or temporarily resides or where cause of action has arisen.
(3) Domestic violence – Continuity of joint residence in a shared house hold or domestic relationship inter se is not a sine qua non for perpetration of domestic violence to an aggrieved person in the form “economic abuse” under DV Act.

Headnote:
(A) Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 – Section 12 – Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 – Section 482 – Domestic violence and ouster from matrimonial home – While exercising power under Section 482, it is for High Court to take into consideration any special feature which appears in a particular case to consider whether it is expedient and in interest of justice to permit a prosecution to continue – To secure ends of justice is much more than to decide case on legal points – Since in instant case, question which has been dealt herein by court below as to maintainability of application under Section 12 of D.V. Act before Trial Court is on the ground of territoriality principle of jurisdiction, order impugned attracts second part of Section 482 of Cr.P.C. and instant application under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. against impugned order is maintainable. (Paras 24 and 25)
(B) Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 – Sections 12, 27 and 3 – Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 – Section 482 – Domestic violence and ouster from matrimonial home – Territorial jurisdiction of Court to entertain complaint – Petition under DV Act can be filed in a court where person aggrieved permanently or temporarily resides or where cause of action has arisen – Temporary residence does not include residence in a lodge or hotel or an inn or residence at a place only for the purpose of filing a domestic violence case, but temporary residence must also be a continuing residence from date of acquiring residence till Application under Section 12 disposed of and it must not be a fleeing residence where a woman comes only for the purpose of contesting case and otherwise does not reside there – Proceeding under Section 12 of DV Act can also be initiated under Section 27(1)(c), where cause of action has arisen – Cause of action embraces those facts which entitles one person to obtain a remedy from another person – Unless there is any domestic violence within meaning of Section 3, there cannot be any cause of action for initiating any proceeding under the Act – Petitioner’s application involves continuous/recurrent cause of action and as such, even if it is taken for granted that petitioners other documents in support of temporary evidence was issued subsequent to filing of case under DV Act, even then filing court (MM Court) has jurisdiction to entertain petitioner’s application since continuous cause of action has arisen within jurisdiction of M.M. Court.(Paras 28, 29, 31 and 36)
(C) Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 – Section 12 – Domestic violence – Continuity of joint residence in a shared house hold or domestic relationship inter se is not a sine qua non for perpetration of domestic violence to an aggrieved person in the form “economic abuse” under the Act – ”Economic abuse” includes deprivation of financial or economic resources to which an aggrieved person is entitled to under law or custom and such claim is a continuing one which continues from day to day. (Para 34)
Result: Revision Petition allowed.

JUDGMENT

Dr. Ajoy Kumar Mukherjee, J.—The petitioner herein/wife has assailed the order dated 22nd August, 2022 passed by learned Chief Judge, City Sessions Court, Calcutta in Criminal Appeal no. 131 of 2022, arising out of a proceeding under section 12 of Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (in short DV Act) vide MISCN Case no. 23 of 2020 filed in the court of erstwhile 11th Metropolitan Magistrate, Calcutta (in short 11th MM).

2. The petitioner’s case is that she was married to the opposite party no.1 in accordance with Islamic rituals on 07.02.2013. It is alleged that inspite of receipt of sufficient amount of dowry, the opposite parties herein with a malafide intention maltreated the petitioner in every possible way and she was also not provided with sufficient food. They are blessed with a child. However, the opposite parties pressed for more dowry and the petitioner finding no other alternative had to leave the matrimonial home and presently had taken shelter at a rented accommodation within Taltala Police Station, Kolkata. Thereafter, she initiated a criminal proceeding against the opposite party under sections 498A/406/506/34 of the IPC, being Taltala Women P.S. Case no. 6 dated 17.3.2020

3. The petitioner’s specific contention is that she took the room within Taltola P.S area, Kolkata, on rent from Sk. Salluddin, on a leave and license agreement which falls within the jurisdiction of aforesaid Trial Court, when she and her minor son was driven away from her matrimonial home. Being a resident of that rented accommodation she filed the instant Application under section 12 of the DV Act, being aforesaid MISCN. No. 23 of 2020, seeking relief under section 17,18,20,21 and 22 of the D.V. Act, against the opposite parties before the then MM 11th Court, Calcutta, having territorial jurisdiction to try and proceed with the said Application. The opposite parties received copy of the said Application and contested the same by filing written objection. However, instead of providing the petitioner and her son the equitable relief which they are entitled to get, the opposite parties herein had come up with the impugned Application of non-maintainability of the said Application filed under section 12 of DV Act, taking a stand that the court concerned has no territorial jurisdiction to try the Application, because the petitioner is a resident of Medinipur District. Opposite Party no. 1 herein filed a Criminal Appeal being no. 87 of 2022 before learned Chief Judge, City Sessions Court at Calcutta, with a prayer for dismissal of the Application on the ground of jurisdiction and learned Sessions Judge thereafter directed the learned Magistrate to hear on the point of jurisdiction vide order dated 27.06.2022.

4. Learned 11th MM. court, Calcutta after hearing both the parties and after considering the documentary evidence placed on record, by his order dated 14.07.2022 came to a conclusion that the petitioner has rightly filed said application under section 12 of the D.V. Act. within the limits of the local jurisdiction where she resides.

5. Being aggrieved by the said order dated 14.07.2022 the OP no.1/husband again preferred a criminal appeal being no. 131 of 2022 before learned Chief Judge, City Sessions Court, Calcutta and the Court below by the impugned order allowed the Appeal on contest and directed the trial Court to return the Application to the aggrieved person for presentation before proper court, having territorial jurisdiction, since he has got no territorial jurisdiction to entertain the said Application.

6. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid order learned counsel for the petitioner Mr. Basu submits that the petitioner is victim of the atrocious activities of the opposite parties and she is living at present within the territorial jurisdiction of the trial court at Kolkata. She further submits that she is the permanent resident of the address furnished in the cause title of the application but she is temporari