The jurisdiction for maintenance claims under domestic violence law can be established at the temporary residence of the aggrieved person, allowing for simultaneous proceedings under various statutes.

Headnote:(A) Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 - Section 528 - Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 - Section 12 and Section 27 - Quashing of proceedings for maintenance and domestic violence - Appellant challenged jurisdiction of Trial Court, arguing false address for residence and lack of maintainability of the petition. Court held that both proceedings could be instituted at temporary residence, and assertions regarding residence need to be established at trial. (Paras 7, 21, 27, 30)

(B) Domestic Violence - Jurisdiction for maintenance claims - A wife can claim maintenance under multiple statutes, and jurisdiction is established based on temporary residency at the location where proceedings are initiated. Court affirmed that prior maintenance proceedings must be disclosed in future proceedings, avoiding overlapping claims and potential conflicting orders. (Paras 22, 24)

JUDGMENT :

MANISH CHOUDHURY, J.

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

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.

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 pet