Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2026 Supreme(Cal) 228

IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
AJOY KUMAR MUKHERJEE, J.
Rani Bibi – Petitioner
Versus
Sk. Nurullah & Ors. – Respondent
CRR 3472 of 2022
Decided On : 18-02-2026

Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioner: Mr. Apalak Basu Mr. Rahul Singh Mr. Subham Kanjilal Ms. Sarnali Gupta
For the Respondent: Mr. Anupam Kumar Bhattacharya Mr. Amit Chowdhury Mr. Mrityunjoy Saha

The jurisdiction in domestic violence cases should prioritize the victim's temporary residence as per the provisions of the Domestic Violence Act, ensuring timely and effective relief.

Headnote:(A) Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 - Section 12 - Jurisdiction - Petitioner wife filed application under Section 12 seeking relief, contested by husband on grounds of jurisdiction claiming residence outside local limits - Appellate Court overturned trial court’s order affirming jurisdiction - High Court held application maintainable as the applicant had established her temporary residence within jurisdiction based on documentary evidence - Court ruled on the broader interpretation of 'residence' under the statute to include temporary accommodation post domestic dislocation. (Paras 2, 5, 8, 9, 10, 28)

(B) Jurisdictional Issues - The Court elucidated that the provisions under Section 27 of the DV Act allow application to be filed where the aggrieved person resides temporarily or where the cause of action arose, affirming the need for a victim-centered approach in interpreting jurisdictional prerequisites. (Paras 27, 31)

Findings of Court:
The appellate order was based on misapprehension of the evidence and overlooked that the petitioner had established a legitimate claim of temporary residence within jurisdiction under the DV Act.

Issues: (a) Maintainability of application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. against appellate judgment on jurisdictional grounds. (b) Jurisdiction of the trial court under Section 27 of the DV Act.

Ratio Decidendi: The High Court underscored that jurisdiction should favor the victim’s position, emphasizing an expansive interpretation of 'residence' under the DV Act.

Result: Impugned appellate order set aside, affirming trial court's jurisdiction.

Judgment :

Dr. Ajoy Kumar Mukherjee, J.

1. 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 temporarily