The Gauhati High Court has held that maintenance proceedings cannot be quashed where the nature of the alleged marital relationship between the parties requires determination through evidence at trial.

Justice Sanjeev Kumar Sharma 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 observation came in a criminal petition filed under Section 528 read with Sections 438 and 442 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, seeking quashing of a case pending before the Principal Judge, Family Court in which the respondent had claimed maintenance under Section 144 BNSS.

The petitioner stated that he had known the respondent through common friends while studying in Guwahati between September 2014 and August 2016. According to him, the respondent had proposed marriage, which he declined, following which she instituted criminal cases against him.

One such case ended in his acquittal, while another was disposed of after withdrawal of prosecution. The respondent had also instituted proceedings under the Domestic Violence Act, 2005.

The petitioner disputed that the respondent was his lawfully wedded wife or that they had ever lived together as husband and wife. He relied upon alleged contradictions in her statements regarding the marriage.

In an affidavit filed in another proceeding, the respondent stated that the marriage was solemnised on January 27, 2015 at Krishna Mandir, Narengi, Guwahati, whereas in the maintenance proceedings she stated that the marriage had taken place at Dhemaji on January 15, 2015.

The petitioner also referred to alleged contradictions in her statements regarding her pregnancies and contended that the proceedings had been instituted with an ulterior motive.

On the basis of these inconsistencies, it was argued that the maintenance proceedings were liable to be quashed.

The respondent, on the other hand, submitted that evidence regarding whether she was married to the petitioner, or whether they were in a relationship of husband and wife which would entitle her to maintenance under Section 144 BNSS, could only be adduced at trial.

It was further contended that the petitioner would have the opportunity to rebut such evidence and that disputed questions of fact requiring evidence could not be decided by the High Court in exercise of its inherent powers.

The High Court found "sufficient force" in the respondent's submissions.

The Court noted that although the contradictory statements regarding the dates and places of marriage created some doubt regarding the factum of marriage, the nature of the relationship between the parties could only be established in the course of trial by adducing evidence.

The Court further held, "Therefore, in the instant case, even if there is discrepancy with regard to the dates and places of marriage as stated by the respondent, the same is to be looked at during the trial and besides the factum of actual marriage, the question regarding the nature of the relationship as to whether it amounted to a relationship of husband and wife is also required to be examined for the purpose of determining whether the respondent herein is entitled to maintenance."

Accordingly, the Court declined to interfere with the maintenance proceedings.

"For the aforesaid reasons, this Court declines to quash the impugned proceedings in exercise of its inherent powers. The criminal petition accordingly stands dismissed."

Case No.: Crl.Pet./35/2026

Case Title: Shri Suraj Chetry v. Smti. Nayanmoni Choudhury

LL Citation: LiveLaw 2026 (Gau) 171

Click Here To Read the Judgement