Rani Bibi Vs Sk Nurullah and Ors on 8 Dec 2025 – Judgement Summary

Posted on April 8 by Suprajaa Rajan

In Rani Bibi vs Sk. Nurullah & Ors. (2026), the Calcutta High Court dealt with a crucial issue concerning territorial jurisdiction under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 and the maintainability of a petition under Section 482 CrPC [Section 528 BNSS].

The petitioner-wife, after being allegedly subjected to cruelty and dowry harassment, shifted to a rented accommodation in Kolkata and initiated proceedings under Section 12 of the DV Act. While the Magistrate upheld jurisdiction, the appellate court reversed the decision, directing return of the application for lack of territorial jurisdiction.

“25. Since in the instant case, the question which has been dealt herein by the court below as to the maintainability of the Application under section 12 of the D.V. Act before the said Trial court is on the ground of territoriality principle of jurisdiction, I am of the firm view that the order impugned attracts the second part of section 482 of the Cr.P.C. and therefore instant application under section 482 of the Code against the impugned order is maintainable.”
“29. In the light of said judgment the temporary residence as envisaged under the Act is such residence where an aggrieved person compelled to take shelter in view of domestic violence perpetrated on her or she either been turned out of the matrimonial home or has to leave the matrimonial home. Of course the 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 the temporary residence must also be a continuing residence from the date of acquiring residence till the Application under section 12 disposed of and it must not be a fleeing residence where a woman comes only for the purpose of contesting the case and otherwise does not reside there.”
“30. In the instant case the document which has been relied by the petitioner and also considering the fact that the petitioner had received court notices from the Taltala Address it does not indicate that it is not her continuing residence nor there is anything to suggest that the petitioner comes to that residence only for the purpose of contesting the said cases and otherwise does not reside therein.”
“34. “Economic abuse” interalia includes deprivation of financial or economic resources to which an aggrieved person is entitled to under the law or custom and such claim is a continuing one which continues from day to day. It is settled law that continuity of joint residence in a shared house hold or domestic relationship inter se is not a sine qua non for the perpetration of domestic violence to an aggrieved person in the form “economic abuse” under the Act.”

Decision

The Court, after detailed analysis, thus, held that:

A woman can initiate DV proceedings where she temporarily resides.
Temporary residence must be genuine and not merely a “fleeting” arrangement.
Economic abuse constitutes a continuing cause of action, thereby conferring jurisdiction.

Therefore, the High Court set aside the appellate court’s order and restored the Magistrate’s decision.

Rani Bibi Vs Sk Nurullah and Ors on 8 Dec 2025

Citation : 2026:CHC-AS:289

Other Sources :

Index of Domestic Violence judgements is here.

Related Legal Concepts

Inherent powers of High Court
Temporary vs Permanent Residence
Economic Abuse under DV Act
Maintainability of Criminal Revision
Abuse of Process of Law

Key Contributor :
Mrs. Suprajaa Rajan B.Com., LL.B., LL.M.
+91-9606345150

Deep Dey Vs State of West Bengal and Anr on 6 Mar 2026

Posted on March 15 by Suprajaa Rajan

Calcutta High Court: Stamp Paper Marriage Has No Legal Validity; Bigamy Case Quashed

A single-judge Bench of the Calcutta High Court held that a marriage executed only through an agreement on stamp paper has no legal recognition under the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.

The complainant claimed that she married the petitioner through a written agreement on stamp paper. Later, the petitioner entered into a registered marriage with another woman. The complainant then filed a criminal case alleging bigamy under Section 494 IPC and cruelty under Section 498A IPC.

However, the Court clarified that Hindu law requires solemnisation of marriage through recognised rites and ceremonies. A mere written agreement cannot create a valid marriage. Therefore, criminal liability for bigamy cannot arise from such an arrangement. As a result, the Court held that continuation of the criminal case would amount to an abuse of the process of law.

“A marriage by signature on an agreement paper is a mode of union unrecognised under this Act. It is a procedure unknown to Hindu Law; consequently, a ‘contractual marriage’ is a legal nullity.” (Para 13)

“Unless the marriage is ‘solemnized’ in the legal sense, it cannot be said to be a marriage for the purposes of the penal section.” (Para 14)

“There is a vital distinction between a marriage that is technically void… and a union that is legally non-existent from the start.” (Para 17)

“The shift from a ‘stamp paper marriage’ in the FIR to a ‘temple marriage’ in subsequent witness statements is a transparent attempt to cure a fatal legal infirmity.” (Para 18)

Decision of the Court

Therefore, the Calcutta High Court held that the alleged stamp-paper marriage had no legal validity under Hindu law. Consequently, the ingredients of Section 494 IPC and Section 498A IPC were not satisfied.

The Court thus exercised its inherent powers under Section 482 CrPC (Section 528 BNSS) and quashed the criminal proceedings against the petitioner. However, the Court clarified that the complainant may pursue other remedies available in law, if applicable.

Deep day Vs State of West Bengal and Anr on 6 Mar 2026

Citation :

Other Sources :

Index of Bigamy Judgments under Sections 494 and 495 of IPC is here.

Key Contributor :

Mrs. Suprajaa Rajan B.Com., LL.B., LL.M.

+91-9606345150

Asish Bera and Ors Vs The State of West Bengal and Anr on 30 Jan 2026

Posted on March 9 by Suprajaa Rajan

The Calcutta High Court held that criminal proceedings cannot continue when the complaint lacks specific material and shows serious inconsistencies. The Court found that the complainant had filed two complaints regarding the same alleged incident without proper explanation.

The Court also noted contradictions in the statements recorded during investigation. It observed that courts must prevent misuse of criminal law in matrimonial disputes. Exercising its inherent powers under Section 482 CrPC (Section 528 BNSS), the Court held that continuation of the proceedings would amount to abuse of the process of law and therefore quashed the case.

The following paragraphs explain the reasoning that led to the decision.

“On careful perusal of the materials on record, it can be found that the Opposite Party no. 2 lodged the complaint before Sagar Police Station… The subsequent complaint was filed before the Court of Learned ACJM at Ranaghat under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C… also in respect of the incident dated March 18, 2022.”

“No satisfactory explanation can be found as to why the de-facto complainant had to lodge two different complaint before different places in respect of self-same incident within a gap of 2 months.”

“It is also a settled law that in case it is found that the nature of complaint primarily found to be of vexatious and frivolous, the courts owes a duty to look into the other evidences collected and did not have to be confined within the content of the written complaint.”

“Therefore on the cumulative assessment of the entire facts and circumstances this Court do not find any material or sufficient material to allow the proceedings to continue further since it would otherwise be absolute abuse of the process of law.”

Decision

The Calcutta High Court allowed the criminal revision petition.

The Court quashed the criminal proceedings pending before the Magistrate. The Court held that continuation of the case would amount to abuse of the process of law.

Asish Bera and Ors Vs The State of West Bengal and Anr on 30 Jan 2026

Citation :2026:CHC-AS:134

Other Sources :

Index of Quash judgments is here.

Key Contributor :

Mrs. Suprajaa Rajan B.Com., LL.B., LL.M.

+91-9606345150

M/s Jindal Polyster Ltd Vs Rahul Jaura on 18 Oct 2005 – Judgment Summary

Posted on March 8 by Suprajaa Rajan

The Delhi High Court examined a petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India challenging a trial court order. The dispute arose in a recovery suit where the defendant denied appointing the plaintiff as an insurance consultant. Later, the defendant realised that the denial resulted from confusion regarding the company’s earlier name. The defendant then sought amendment of the written statement.

The plaintiff opposed the amendment and also filed an application under Section 340 CrPC (Section 379 BNSS) alleging perjury.

The High Court examined whether the amendment should be allowed and whether such allegations should affect the amendment request.

The following paragraphs explain the reasoning that led to the final decision.

“The defendant then realized its mistake because the earlier name of the defendant-company was ‘M/s Hindustan Pipe Udyog Limited’ and ‘Hindustan Synthetic Fibres’ was a division of ‘Hindustan Pipe Udyog Limited’. In the year 1992 the name ‘Hindustan Pipe Udyog Limited’ was changed to ‘Jindal Polysters and Steel Limited’, which name was again changed to ‘Jindal Polysters Limited’ in the year 1995.”

“The explanation given for the amendment was that there was a communication gap between the defendant and his earlier counsel and that Mr. Sumeet Maheshwari, who joined the defendant as Company Secretary in the year 1994 was not very much acquainted with the fact that the earlier name of the defendant company was ‘Hindustan Pipe Udyog Limited’.”

“After hearing both the learned counsel for the parties, I am of the view that so far as the application under Section 340 Cr.P.C. is concerned, it is established law that this has to be dealt with normally at the time of final disposal of the matter and after the trial court judge forms an opinion that an offence of perjury had been intentionally committed and that it was expedient in the interest of justice to lodge a complaint.”

“I find force in the contentions of the learned counsel for the petitioner-defendant that there was change of names repeatedly about the defendant company and the company could not run away with any averment about its denial of the appointment of plaintiff.”

Decision

The Delhi High Court allowed the petition and set aside the trial court’s order.

The Court permitted the amendment of the written statement under Order VI Rule 17 CPC. It allowed the amendment subject to costs of ₹10,000.

The Court also clarified that allegations under Section 340 CrPC (Section 379 BNSS) should be considered at the appropriate stage during the trial.

M:s Jindal Polyster Ltd Vs Rahul Jaura on 18 Oct 2005

Citation :2005:DHC:3716

Other Sources :

Index of Perjury proceedings is here.

Key Contributor :

Mrs. Suprajaa Rajan B.Com., LL.B., LL.M.

+91-9606345150

Saikat Das Vs State of West Bengal and Anr on 27 Mar 2025

Posted on April 18, 2025 by ShadesOfKnife

A single bench judge of Calcutta High Court denied maintenance to deserter wife.

From Para 24,

24. During the cross-examination of the respondent wife in the Domestic Violence case, the respondent wife has stated that “On 31st January, 2015, I left matrimonial home and came to my parental home”. In the application under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, the respondent wife made out a case that on 3rd February, 2015, her husband and her in-laws have brutally tortured upon her. The Learned Magistrate as well as the Learned Appellate Court finds that as per the case of the wife, she left her matrimonial house on 31st January, 2015 and she never came back to her matrimonial home, how the petitioner and his parents cause torture upon the respondent wife.

From Para 29,

29. This Court finds that the respondent wife in the Domestic Violence case made out the case of torture by the petitioner on 3rd February, 2015 and in the application filed under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C. made out a case by making a bald allegation of torture other than the case made out in an application under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005. In the case of domestic violence, the respondent wife in support of her case had examined her mother as witness. The mother of the respondent wife in her statement has stated that “she came to depose as per direction of her daughter and her daughter asked her what to tell and her affidavit was prepared by her lawyer and she only put her signature”. She also stated that they provided with several things to her daughter on her reception but not on demand and after marriage there was no demand for dowry. The respondent wife cleverly not brings her mother as witness in the case filed under Section 125 of Cr.P.C.

From Para 30,

30. Husband is legally and morally bound to provide maintenance to his wife. The right of the wife to be maintained by the husband stems from the corresponding obligation to perform marital duty. Section 125 (1)(a) of Cr.PC (Section 144 (1) (a) of BNSS) provides maintenance to the wife who is unable to maintain herself. However, the right of the wife to claim maintenance from her husband, who has sufficient means, is not absolute. It is subject to sub-section (4) of Section 125 (Section 144 (4) of BNSS). A wife who chooses to live separately without sufficient reason is disentitled to maintenance under Section 125(4) of Cr.PC (Section 144 (4) of BNSS). It is crucial to assess whether the wife’s decision to live separately is based on valid grounds. If valid grounds, such as cruelty or desertion, exist, she may still claim maintenance despite living apart. In cases where the wife refuses to live with the husband without any just cause and there is no evidence of ill-treatment by the husband, the wife is not entitled to maintenance.

From Para 36,

36. The affidavit of assets and liabilities filed by the parties, this Court finds that both the parties have not disclosed their affidavit of assets and liabilities correctly and thus one party cannot take the benefit of the wrong committed by the other party when the both the party have committed wrong.

From Para 37, (When there is no neglect, it is wrong to sustain maintenance to minor child)

37. This Court has already held that the respondent wife is living separately since 31st January, 2015 without any sufficient reasons and there is no evidence to show that she was ill-treated by the petitioner, thus the order passed by the Learned Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Calcutta in Misc Case No. 29 of 2016 dated 6th September, 2024 is set aside with respect to grant of maintenance of Rs. 7,000/- per month for the respondent wife. As regard the maintenance of the minor, this Court has not interfered with.

Saikat Das Vs State of West Bengal and Anr on 27 Mar 2025

Index of Maintenance Judgements is here.

Analysis by Adv Talari Rajeswari

Sagari Hembram Vs State of WB and Anr on 19 Nov 2024

Posted on November 21, 2024 by ShadesOfKnife

A single judge bench at Calcutta High Court held that Second Wife Not Liable for Cruelty Simply Due to Husband’s Bigamous Marriage.

From Paras 8-10,

8. The said conduct of second marriage is prima facie applicable in respect of the husband of the complainant and the ingredients of the offences alleged are prima facie not applicable in respect of the petitioner herein.
9. The rest of the offences being under Section 498A/406/506 IPC also are thus prima facie not applicable in respect of the petitioner herein. The ingredients required to constitute the offence under Section 506 IPC are also not present in respect of the petitioner herein.
10. As such the proceedings against the present petitioner is bad in law and permitting such a proceeding to continue would be a clear abuse of process of law and in the interest of justice is liable to be quashed.

Sagari Hembram Vs State of WB and Anr on 19 Nov 2024

Nripendra Chandra Mahanta Vs Pramila Mahanta on 08 Feb 2023

Posted on October 11, 2024 by ShadesOfKnife

A single judge of Calcutta High Court at Jalpaiguri remanded the maintenance case back to Trial Court since husband failed to file Income affidavit.

Although learned counsel for the petitioner is justified in arguing that the proposition laid down in Rajnesh vs. Neha has not been observed at all in the present case, on humanitarian consideration and considering that the marriage between the petitioner and the opposite party is still subsisting, it cannot be gainsaid that the petitioner is entitled to get at least some amount of ad hoc alimony from the petitioner-husband.
Keeping in view the above considerations, CO 138 of 2022 is allowed, thereby setting aside the impugned order and directing the District Judge, Cooch Behar to re-decide the application for alimony filed by the petitioner subject to directing the filing of affidavits in compliance with the proposition laid down in the judgment of the Supreme Court as indicated above and to decide the same afresh within a reasonable period, preferably within six months from the date of communication of this order to the said court. The above order will subsist on condition that the petitioner-husband goes on paying to the opposite party-wife an amount of Rs.4,000/- per month on an ad hoc basis for maintaining the opposite party-wife, apart from the medical expenses incurred by the wife upon the opposite party-wife handing over copies of the necessary documents indicating the costs incurred on her medical expenses account to the petitioner-husband.

Nripendra Chandra Mahanta Vs Pramila Mahanta on 08 Feb 2023

Index of Maintenance Judgments is here.

Swapan Kumar Das Vs State of West Bengal on 21 Aug 2023

Posted on August 22, 2023 by ShadesOfKnife

A single judge of Calcutta High Court quash vengeful litigation, terming the same as ‘Legal Terrorism‘.

The basic allegation of offence punishable u/s 498A of IPC has some specific ingredients they are:-
1. Married woman was subjected to cruelty.
2. Such cruelty consisted in
a) in lawful conduct as was likely to drive such women to commit suicide or to cause grave injury or danger to her life, limb or health whether mental or physical.
b) harm to such women with a view coercing her to me unlawful demand for property or valuable security or on account of failure of such woman or not of her relations to him the lawful demand.
c) the women was subjected to such cruelty by her husband or any relation of her husband.

And then…

The legislature has enacted the provision of Section 498A to strike out the dowry menace from the society. But it is observed in several cases that by misusing of said provision new legal terrorism is unleashed. Harassment and torture enumerated in the definition of security u/s 498A cannot be proved solely by the de-facto complainant. The criminal law is allowed, complainant to file a criminal complaint but the same has to be justified by adducing cogent evidences. The four corners of both the CDs recorded no such evidence by which prima facie offence against the present petitioners can be established. The direct allegation against the husband by the de-facto complainant is merely from the version of the de-facto complainant herself. It support no documentary or medical evidence. One neighbour has heard about the quarrel of Banashree her husband; the quarrel of two persons does not mean or prove who is in aggression or who is aggrieved.

Finally,

On perusing the observation of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Ch. Bhajanlal, I am of a view that the instant criminal proceedings initiated by the de-facto complainant against the husband and in-laws does not disclose prima facie offence against them as alleged. The proceeding are instituted only to fulfil personal grudge.
Considering the circumstances I think it necessary to invoke the inherent power of this court to quash the proceedings otherwise the continuation of the criminal proceedings would be tantamount to the abuse of process of court.

Swapan Kumar Das Vs State of West Bengal on 21 Aug 2023

Sankar Prasad Shaw and Ors Vs The State and Anr on 27 Jul 1990

Posted on June 18, 2023 by ShadesOfKnife

A single judge of Calcutta High Court held as follows,

From Paras 5 and 6,

5. So, as per the definition, dowry means any property or valuable security given or agreed to be given either directly or indirectly by one party to a marriage to the other party to the marriage or by the parents of either party to the marriage or to any other person, at or before or after the carriage in connection with the marriage of the said parties. Sri Mukherjee has laid emphasis on the words ‘given’ or ‘agreed to be given’ at or before or after the marriage in connection with the marriage. Judged in terms of the definition, the learned counsel has submitted that in the case in hand, neither party to the marriage nor their relations had ever given or agreed to give any property or valuable security to the other party at or before or after the marriage, and, therefore, the learned counsel argues, s. 4 of the Act is not attracted to the case in hand.
6. I find much substance in the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioners. The complaint petition does not disclose that the complainant had given any property or valuable security or that he had agreed to give such things to the accused petitioner No. 1, either at or before or after the marriage between Usha Shaw and petitioner No. 1 or to his parents or other relations. Although in common parlance we very often use the term “dowry demand” in the cases where the husband or his relations demand valuable security from the parents and other relations of the wife after the marriage, yet, in my opinion this will not amount to demand for dowry under the Act in view of the definition of dowry contained in s. 2 the Act. Demand for dowry under the Act and in the legal sense will mean the demand for dowry only when it refers to property or valuable security given or agreed to be given at or before or after the marriage. The alleged offence as made out in the complaint petition may attract the penal provisions as contained in s. 498A of the Indian Penal Code. The Parliament in its wisdom appended the explanation as to what “cruelty” means and has constructed sub clause (b) of s. 498A in the following words, “Harassment of the woman where such harassment is with a view to coercing her or any person related to her to meet any unlawful demand for any property or valuable security or is on account of failure by her or any person related to her to meet such demand”. In my opinion, if the cases of this nature are to be brought within the ambit of s. 4 of the Act, then the word ‘dowry’ under s. 2 of the Act shall have to be redefined in the light of sub-clause (b) under s. 498A of the Indian Penal Code. The term “extortion demand” popularised by the media may also find a place in the definition of dowry.

Sankar Prasad Shaw and Ors Vs The State and Anr on 27 Jul 1990 (CM Ver)

Other Sources:

https://indiankanoon.org/doc/946303/

https://www.casemine.com/judgement/in/56095f9ee4b01497112cab8b

Prasenjit Mukherjee Vs State of West Bengal and Ors on 02 Sep 2021

Posted on May 24, 2022 by ShadesOfKnife

A single judge of Calcutta High Court held as follows:

On an examination of the controversy involved in the present case in the background of the law laid down in Rakesh Malhotra (supra) once it comes to the knowledge of the learned Magistrate that the marriage between the parties have been dissolved by a decree of divorce under the relevant provisions of Section 13B of the Hindu Marriage Act and it is found that the wife has received a lump-sum amount as onetime payment towards maintenance, what would be the procedure adopted in the following circumstances:
(a) A fresh case under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is filed.
(b) The proceedings under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was pending and the Civil Court has dissolved the marriage by decree of divorce and there was no information before the Civil Court regarding the pendency of the proceedings under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
(c) Procedure/steps to be adopted by the learned Magistrate if the proceedings under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and the proceedings under Section 13B of the Hindu Marriage Act (which has already been decided) are in different sub-divisions or different districts or different States.
As the aforesaid questions involve serious ramification so far as the proceedings under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure are concerned, I am of the view that the same is to be referred and settled by a Larger Bench (as there are conflicting judgments of this Court on the point).
Accordingly, the record of the case be placed before The Hon’ble The Chief Justice (Acting), High Court at Calcutta.

Prasenjit Mukherjee Vs State of West Bengal and Ors on 02 Sep 2021

The case was ordered to be listed but it’s been over 8 months, the Judges did not find time to look in it…

Prasenjit Mukherjee Vs State of West Bengal and Ors on 10 Sep 2021 (List Matter)

Shades of Knife

True Colors of a Vile Wife

Category: High Court of Calcutta Judgment or Order or Notification

Rani Bibi Vs Sk Nurullah and Ors on 8 Dec 2025 – Judgement Summary

Decision

Related Legal Concepts

Deep Dey Vs State of West Bengal and Anr on 6 Mar 2026

Calcutta High Court: Stamp Paper Marriage Has No Legal Validity; Bigamy Case Quashed

Decision of the Court

Asish Bera and Ors Vs The State of West Bengal and Anr on 30 Jan 2026

Decision

M/s Jindal Polyster Ltd Vs Rahul Jaura on 18 Oct 2005 – Judgment Summary

Decision

Saikat Das Vs State of West Bengal and Anr on 27 Mar 2025

Sagari Hembram Vs State of WB and Anr on 19 Nov 2024

Nripendra Chandra Mahanta Vs Pramila Mahanta on 08 Feb 2023

Swapan Kumar Das Vs State of West Bengal on 21 Aug 2023

Sankar Prasad Shaw and Ors Vs The State and Anr on 27 Jul 1990