Judgment & Order (Cav)

1. Heard Mr. T. Kalita, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. R. Amin, learned counsel for the respondent No.2 as well as Mr. K. Baishya, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State Respondent No.1.

2. This application under Section 528 of the BNSS, 2023, has been filed by the petitioner, Shri Abhijit Ghosh, praying for quashing of the order dated 01.07.2025, passed by the Court of learned Principal Judge Family Court, Kamrup (M) Guwahati, in FC (Crl.) Case No. 89/2025, whereby, the application filed by the respondent No.2, praying for maintenance under Section 144 of the BNSS, 2023, was registered as FC (Crl.) Case No. 89/2025.The petitioner has also prayed for quashing of the entire proceedings.

3. The facts relevant for consideration of the instant criminal petition in brief are that the Respondent No. 2, namely, Smt. Priyanka Ghosh had filed one application under Section 144 of the BNSS, 2023, before the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Kamrup (M), praying for grant of maintenance to her by the present petitioner.

4. It is contended in the petition filed by the respondent No. 2, before the Family Court, that the petitioner and the respondent No. 2 have been in live in relationship since 15.11.2023, on the condition that the petitioner promised to marry Respondent No. 2 within December 2024. However, in spite of having cohabited together, the petitioner finally, on 31.12.2024, refused to marry the Respondent No. 2.

5. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the allegations leveled in the application under Section 144 of the BNSS, 2023, before the Family Court, against the present petitioner, are not true. He submits that, though the petitioner was having a romantic relationship with the Respondent No. 2, however, their relationship was in the nature of a distant relationship, and there was no live-in together between them. There was only exchange of WhatsApp messages between them.

6. He further submits that, prior to having relationship with the petitioner, the Respondent No. 2 was in live-in relationship with one Shani Gope, who was a resident of Hojai, and out of the said relationship, a baby boy was born to the RespondentNo. 2. He submits that respondent No. 2 was driven out of the house of said Shani Gope by him on 13.10.2023. He submits that the petitioner and the respondent No. 2 never had any shared household, which is an essential ingredient for a relationship to be regarded as a live-in relationship.

7. He further submits that to invoke the provisions of Section 144 of the BNSS, 2023, the live-in relationship has to be in the nature of marriage to entitle the respondent No. 2 to get maintenance. However, that is not the case in the instant case, as the petitioner never stayed with the Respondent No. 2 in a shared household. He submits that it is settled by the Apex Court that merely spending weekends together or a one-night stand would not make a relationship a domestic relationship. To substantiate his submission, he has cited a ruling of the Apex Code in the case of “D. Velusamy Vs. D Patchaiammal” reported in (2010) SCC 469. The learned counsel for the petitioner, therefore, prays for setting aside the impugned order and also the quashing of the entire proceeding of FC Criminal Case No. 89/2025, pending before the learned Principal Judge Family CourtNo.1, Kamrup (M) Guwahati.

8. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the Respondent No.2 has vehemently opposed the invoking of inherent powers of this Court under Section 528 of the BNSS, 2023 at this stage and interfering with the impugned order dated 01.07.2025 and as well as the FC (Crl.) Case No. 89/2025 pending before the Court of learned Principal Judge Family Court, Kamrup (M) Guwahati at this stage.

9. He submits that the Trial Court on receipt of the application under Section 144 of the BNSS, 2023, filed by the Respondent No.2, has only registered the FC (Crl.) Case No. 89/2025on the basis of the averments made in the petition. He submits that if a woman is having a relationship with a man in the nature of marriage, she would be entitled to get maintenance from such a man if she does not have any independent source of income and the said man refuses to maintain her.

10. He submits that the petitioner admittedly had a romantic relationship with the Respondent No.2 and it is stated in the application under Section 144 of the BNSS, 2023 before the Family Court that the Respondent No.2 had live-in-relationship with the petitioner since 15.11.2023 and also that they have cohabited together. He submits that the Apex Court in a catena of judgments laid down the criteria as to what kind of relationship may be regarded as a living relationship. However, he submits that the said question has to be determined by the Trial Court on the basis of evidence adduced by both the parties.

11. The learned counsel for the Respondent No.2 has submitted that at this stage, when the Respondent No.2 had prima facie made out a case that her relationship with the petitioner is a live-in-relationship, this Court should not verify the veracity of such claims, in exercise of its inherent powers under a proceeding under Section 528 of BNSS, 2023. More so, when by he submits that the Respondent no. 2 has in her affidavit-in-opposition also annexed photographs and WhatsApp chat between the respondent No.2 and this petitioner which shows that they were in a live-in-relationship. He submits that the Respondent No.2 has prima facie made out a case for grant of maintenance under Section 144 of the BNSS, 2023 in her application.

12. The ascertainment of the question as to whether she would get maintenance or whether her relationship with the petitioner may be regarded as a relationship in the nature of marriage or live-in-relationship is within the domain of the Trial Court. He submits that this Court should not interfere at the initial stage in the proceeding which is basically in the nature of a maintenance proceeding. In support of his submission learned counsel for respondent has cited a ruling of the following rulings of the Apex Court.

                   i. Indra Sarma Vs. V.K.V Sarma reported in (2013) 15 SCC 755.

                   ii. Pradeep Kumar Kesarwani Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and Another (Criminal Appeal No.3831/2025).

13. I have considered the submissions of the learned counsel for both sides and have gone through the materials on record. I have also gone through the rulings cited by the learned counsel for both sides in support of their respective submissions.

14. In the instant case, it appears that the Respondent No. 2 has approached the Family Court at Kamrup(M) for seeking maintenance from the petitioner under Section 144 of the BNSS, 2023 on the ground that she was in live-in relationship with the petitioner and also cohabited together. It also appears that she has contended that the live-in relationship was there because of the assurance given by the petitioner that he would be marrying the Respondent No. 2. However, when the petitioner retracted from his promise and parted with the respondent No. 2, she approached the Family Court seeking maintenance.

15. It also appears that by the impugned order the Trial Court has only directed the case to be registered under Section 144 of the BNSS, 2023 and transferred the case to the learned Principal Judge Family Court, Kamrup (M) Guwahati No. 1. i.e., the case was kept with the Principal Judge, Family Court No. 1. itself and the next date was fixed on 06.05.2025 for service report.

16. The petitioner has approached this Court by filing the instant application under Section 528 of BNSS, 2023 for invoking its inherent powers by quashing the aforementioned case registered on the basis of the application under Section 144 of the BNSS, 2023 filed by the Respondent No. 2. The petitioner claims that he never had live-in relationship with the Respondent No. 2 and never cohabited with her and they never had any shared household and, therefore, the Trial Court was wrong in registering the case under Section 144 of BNSS, 2023.

17. The Apex Court in the case of “Neeharika Infrastructure (P Ltd)Vs. State of Maharashtra” reported in (2021) 19 SSC 401 has observed that the power of quashing a criminal case should be exercised sparingly with circumspections. It has also observed that while examining an FIR/complaint, the quashing of which is sought, the Court cannot embark upon an inquiry as to the reliability or genuineness or otherwise of the allegations made in the FIR/Complaint. It also observed that a criminal proceeding ought not to be curtailed at the initial stage.

18. Though, the proceeding under Section 144 of BNSS, 2023 may be regarded as a criminal proceeding as it emanates out of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1908(BNSS), however, the said proceeding does not have any penal consequences. It is only for deciding as to whether the applicant is entitled to get maintenance allowance from the respondent or not.

19. The respondent No. 2 in her application under Section 144 of BNSS, 2023 before the Trial Court has categorically stated therein that she was in live in relationship with the petitioner since 15.11.2023 and the petitioner promised to marry her within December 2024. However, on 31.12.2024 the petitioner refused to marry her. Whether the contentions raised by the respondent No. 2 in her application under Section 144 of the BNSS, 2023 are true or false, is in the considered opinion of this Court, for the Trial Court to decide. As observed by the Apex Court in catena of Judgments, including in the case of “Neeharika Infrastructure (P Ltd)”(Supra), that the reliability or genuineness of the allegation made in a complaint is not to be examined by this Court in exercise of its inherent jurisdiction. This is not a case where on the plain reading of the application under Section 144 of the BNSS, 2023 no case is made out for grant of maintenance. Rather, if the averments made in the said application are not contradicted or countered, the Respondent No. 2 would be entitled to get maintenance. The veracity of allegations made therein as well as genuineness of the contentions raised therein is to be examined by the Trial Court after affording opportunity to the petitioner of filing his written objection as well as adducing evidence in support of the same.

20. At the initial stage, this Court should not interfere in a proceeding under Section 144 of the BNSS, 2023, if otherwise, the Respondent No. 2 has been able to make out a prima facie case, which in the considered opinion of this Court, the Respondent No. 2 has able to do. The facts of this case in the considered opinion of this Court are not such where non-interference would result in miscarriage of justice. This is not a fit case where the inherent powers of this Court should be invoked to scuttle a maintenance proceeding at the initial stage.

21. For the discussions made in the foregoing paragraph and reasons stated therein, this Court is of considered opinion that this Criminal Petition is devoid of any merit and, accordingly, dismissed.