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.

Citation : 2026:CHC-AS:289

Other Sources :

Mistake in the citation:

This judgment quotes a wrong title for a judgment

Index of Domestic Violence judgements is here.

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