Shared Household Not Sine Qua Non For Economic Abuse Under Domestic Violence Act; Woman Compelled To Leave Matrimonial Home Can Invoke Jurisdiction From Temporary Residence: Calcutta High Court
Temporary residence must be a genuine dwelling, not a hotel, lodge, or fleeting stay; economic abuse held to be a continuing cause of action
Justice Dr. Ajoy Kumar Mukherjee, Calcutta High Court
The Calcutta High Court has held that continuity of residence in a shared household or subsistence of a domestic relationship is not a sine qua non for establishing domestic violence in the form of economic abuse under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005. It observed that deprivation of financial resources, including failure to provide maintenance, constitutes “economic abuse” and can persist even after the parties cease to reside together. Such abuse, being continuing in nature, gives rise to a recurring cause of action, entitling the aggrieved woman to seek relief under the Act irrespective of whether she continues to live in the shared household.
The Court further observed that a woman’s temporary residence, taken after being allegedly driven out of her matrimonial home, is sufficient to invoke jurisdiction under the Act.
Justice Ajoy Kumar Mukherjee allowing a criminal revisional application, observed, “…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…”.
“…The aforesaid allegation per se discloses a case of “economic abuse” under section 3 of the Act, which includes “domestic violence”. “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”, the bench further observed.
Advocate Palak Basu appeared for the petitioner and Advocate Anupam Kumar Bhattacharya appeared for the respondents.
The case in the pertinent matter arose from proceedings initiated by the wife under Section 12 of the DV Act, alleging dowry-related harassment, deprivation, and abuse. She contended that after being forced to leave her matrimonial home, she took shelter in a rented accommodation in Kolkata and filed the application there.
While the Magistrate had upheld the maintainability of the complaint, the Sessions Court reversed the finding, holding that the Kolkata court lacked territorial jurisdiction and directing the application to be returned.
The High Court, however, disagreed with the appellate court’s approach and restored the Magistrate’s order.
The Court emphasised that under Section 27 of the DV Act, jurisdiction can be invoked not only where the aggrieved person permanently resides, but also where she temporarily resides or where the cause of action arises. Interpreting the expression “temporary residence,” the Court observed that it must be a place where the aggrieved person has taken shelter with an intention to reside, even if not permanently, and not merely a casual or fleeting visit.
On facts, the Court found that documents on record, including address proofs and service of notices, indicated that the petitioner was indeed residing at the Kolkata address. It rejected the contention that the address was fabricated solely to create jurisdiction.
Addressing the objection on maintainability, the Court clarified that the High Court’s inherent powers under Section 482 CrPC can be invoked in DV proceedings to prevent abuse of process and secure the ends of justice, despite the predominantly civil nature of such proceedings.
“…the proceeding under section 12 of the DV Act can also be initiated under section 27(1)(c), where the cause of action has arisen. The expression cause of action does not refer to any particular fact or facts and it really means the fact or facts which give a person a right to judicial redress or relief against the adversary. It also refers to a situation or state of facts which would entitle to a party to sustain action and give him or her the right to seek a judicial remedy in his or her behalf. Cause of action may arise in different way i.e. failure to perform legal obligation to do or refrain from performing it, unlawful violation or invasion of right etc. Therefore, cause of action embraces those facts which entitles one person to obtain a remedy from another person. It is to be mentioned in this context that unless there is any domestic violence within the meaning of section 3, there cannot be any cause of action for initiating any proceeding under the Act.”, the Bench further observed in the judgment.
Finding the appellate court’s reasoning to be perverse, the Court set aside its order and restored the Magistrate’s decision, allowing the domestic violence proceedings to continue in Kolkata.
Cause Title: Rani Bibi v. Sk. Nurullah & Ors. [Neutral Citation: 2026:CHC-AS:289]
Appearances:
Petitioner: Palak Basu, Rahul Singh, Subham Kanjilal, Sarnali Gupta, Advocates.
Respondents: Anupam Kumar Bhattacharya, Amit Chowdhury, Mrityunjoy Saha, Advocates.