Page No.# 1/3 GAHC010274322024 2025:GAU-AS:16716 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : Crl.Pet./1596/2024 SANJU ACHARJEE SON OF LATE KAMAKHYA ACHARJEE, RESIDENT OF DULIAJAN STATION ROAD, P.O. AND P.S. DULIAJAN, DISTRICT- DIBRUGARH, ASSAM VERSUS NABAMITA CHAKRABORTY AND ANR EX-WIFE OF SRI SANJU ACHARJEE, DAUGHTER OF LATE ASHUTOSH CHAKRABORTY, PERMANENT RESIDENT OF HIJUGURI, ROBINDRA NAGAR, 1 NO. GATE, P.O. HIJUGURI, P.S. AND DISTRICT- TINSUKIA, ASSAM, PRESENTLY RESDING AT C/O BISWAJIT BISWAS, PADUM NAGAR LANE NO. 2, OPPOSITE PUBLIC SCHOOL ROAD, P.S. GABHARUPATHAR, P.O. AND DISTRICT- DIBRUGARH, ASSAM 2:THE STATE OF ASSAM REPRESENTED BY THE P.P. ASSA Advocate for the Petitioner : MR R CHAKRAVORTY, R BASUMATARY,S RABHA Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, MR. P NEOG (R-1) BEFORE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE SUSMITA PHUKAN KHAUND ORDER Date : 04.12.2025 Heard learned counsel Mr. R. Chakravorty for the petitioner ‘ X’ who has filed Page No.# 2/3 this application under Section 528 r/w with Section 442 of the BNSS 2023 for quashing of the proceeding vide Case No.42M/2024 filed by the respondent No.1 under Section 144 of the BNSS. 2. The petitioner/husband is aggrieved by the order of cognizance dated 23.09.2024, passed in the aforementioned case. It is submitted that the petitioner/husband has already obtained a decree of divorce vide order dated 18.05.2018 in Title Suit (D) No.86/2017 annexed as Annexure-6 of the petition. After seven years, the respondent No.1/wife has filed petition vide Case No.42M/2024 for maintenance, and the petition is not maintainable considering the prolonged gap when the petitioner was granted a decree of divorce by the dissolution of his marriage with his wife, respondent No.1 (‘Y’). 3. The learned counsel for the respondent No.1, Mr. P. Neog has submitted that the decree was obtained ex-parte and it is also submitted that the respondent No.1/wife is unable to maintain herself and she is suffering immensely and this impelled her to file petition for maintenance. It is also submitted that the respondent No.1 is the estranged wife and had not moved for divorce, and the petitioner/husband was the one who initiated the divorce proceeding. 4. On the contrary, it is also submitted on behalf of the petitioner that the respondent No.1/wife has filed slew of cases against the petitioner, to the detriment of the petitioner, for which he had to suffer immensely and had to face trial in a criminal case, registered as GR Case No.2985/2017 and a proceeding under the Domestic Violence Act registered as DV Case No.6/2018 along with CR Case No.4/2019. All these cases have been decided in favor of the petitioner whereas, the proceeding under the Domestic Violence Act was Page No.# 3/3 filed for non-prosecution by the respondent No.1. 5. It is also submitted that a query has been made by this Court if the respondent No.1 has remarried, but the answer is that the respondent No.1 has not remarried and she has filed a petition for maintenance. 6. I have considered the submission of both sides. 7. It appears that the trial court is the best court to decide whether the petition under Section 144 of the BNSS is maintainable, and if the respondent No.1 deserves maintenance, thereby, without setting aside the order of cognizance, the petitioner is directed to appear before the learned trial court and to co-operate with the proceeding in Case No. 42M/2024 on the next date fixed. 8. In terms of the above observation, this petition is disposed of. JUDGE Comparing Assistant