The Gauhati High Court has declined to quash maintenance proceedings filed under Section 144 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS), holding that disputes concerning the existence and nature of a marital relationship must be examined through evidence at trial.
Justice Sanjeev Kumar Sharma passed the judgment in a petition seeking to quash proceedings pending before the Principal Judge, Family Court, Kamrup (Metro), Guwahati.
The petition was filed under Section 528 read with Sections 438 and 442 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, seeking quashing of the petition and the entire proceedings in F.C.(Crl.) No. 557/2024. The maintenance proceedings were pending before the Principal Judge, Family Court, Kamrup (Metro), at Guwahati.
The petitioner disputed that he had married the respondent or lived with her as husband and wife. He also pointed to different statements made by the respondent in separate proceedings concerning the date and place of their alleged marriage.
According to the judgment, the respondent had stated in an affidavit in an earlier proceeding that the marriage was solemnised on January 27, 2015, at Krishna Mandir, Narengi, Guwahati. In the maintenance proceedings, however, she stated that the marriage took place at Dhemaji on January 15, 2015.
The petitioner argued that these inconsistencies justified quashing the maintenance proceedings. The respondent opposed the plea, submitting that the disputed questions regarding marriage and the nature of the relationship could be determined only after evidence was led before the trial court.
Justice Sanjeev Kumar Sharma acknowledged that the differing statements regarding the date and place of marriage created some doubt about the alleged marriage. However, the Court held that the question whether the parties had a relationship in the nature of husband and wife had to be established through evidence during trial..
The Court observed:
“Although the contradictory statements of the respondent made in different proceedings as to the dates and places of marriage do create some doubt regarding the factum of marriage, it is trite law that in a proceeding under Section 144 BNSS, it is sufficient to establish a relationship in the nature of husband and wife and the same can be established only in the course of a trial by adducing evidence.”
The Court also relied on the Supreme Court’s decision in Dwarika Prasad Satpathy v. Bidyut Prava Dixit and Another, reported in (1999) 7 SCC 675. It noted that where a claimant establishes that the parties lived together as husband and wife, a presumption of legal marriage may arise, subject to rebuttal by the other party.
The High Court therefore held that the alleged discrepancies regarding the marriage had to be examined during trial, along with the question of whether the parties had a relationship in the nature of husband and wife for the purpose of maintenance.
The Gauhati High Court declined to exercise its inherent powers to quash the maintenance proceedings. Justice Sanjeev Kumar Sharma accordingly dismissed the criminal petition.
Case Title: Shri Suraj Chetry v. Smti. Nayanmoni Choudhury
Case Number: Crl.Pet./35/2026
