IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA CRIMINAL REVISIONAL JURISDICTION APPELLATE SIDE PRESENT:

THE HON’BLE DR. JUSTICE AJOY KUMAR MUKHERJEE CRR 3472 of 2022 Rani Bibi Vs.

Sk. Nurullah & Ors.

For the Petitioner : Mr. Apalak Basu Mr. Rahul Singh Mr. Subham Kanjilal Ms. Sarnali Gupta For the Opposite Parties : Mr. Anupam Kumar Bhattacharya Mr. Amit Chowdhury Mr. Mrityunjoy Saha Heard on : 08.12.2025 Judgment on : 18.02.2026 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. Bein