Section 144 BNSS | Disputed Questions Of Fact Regarding Factum Of Marriage Cannot Be Decided In Quashing Proceedings: Gauhati High Court

"If the claimant proves that they live together as husband and wife, the Court can presume a legal marriage, shifting the burden to the other party to rebut this presumption." Gauhati High Court, in a significant ruling, held that proceedings under Section 144 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) cannot be quashed merely on the ground of factual discrepancies regarding the date or venue of a marriage.

A single bench of Justice Sanjeev Kumar Sharma observed that the existence of a relationship in the nature of marriage is a matter to be adjudicated during trial upon the evaluation of evidence, rather than through summary interference by the High Court in its inherent jurisdiction.

The petitioner had approached the High Court seeking the quashing of a maintenance petition filed by the respondent under Section 144 BNSS. The petitioner contended that the respondent’s claims were concocted, pointing to contradictory statements made by her in previous litigation regarding the date and location of their alleged marriage and her pregnancy history. He argued that the proceedings were initiated with the sole ulterior motive of extracting money through false litigation.

The core legal issue before the court was whether the High Court, in exercise of its inherent powers, should quash maintenance proceedings under Section 144 BNSS when the petitioner challenges the factum of marriage based on contradictory factual averments made by the claimant in different judicial forums.

Court Refuses To Conduct Mini-Trial

The Court firmly rejected the petitioner's plea, noting that the scope of its inherent power does not extend to the resolution of disputed questions of fact that require a full-fledged trial. The bench emphasized that maintenance proceedings are summary in nature and are designed to provide immediate support, and a claimant's entitlement is to be determined based on the evidence adduced during the proceedings before the Family Court.

Presumption Of Relationship

Relying on the Supreme Court precedent in Dwarika Prasad Satpathy v. Bidyut Prava Dixit, the High Court underscored that the law allows for a presumption of marriage if it is proven that the parties lived together as husband and wife. The Court noted that even if there are inconsistencies in the pleadings regarding the specific date or venue of the marriage, these are matters that must be tested during the trial.

Requirement To Rebut Presumption

The Court observed that once a prima facie case of living together is established, the burden shifts to the respondent-petitioner to rebut such a presumption. The bench held that it is the trial court’s prerogative to evaluate whether the relationship qualifies as one "in the nature of marriage," and it is during this phase that the petitioner will have the opportunity to cross-examine and present his own evidence to the contrary.

The High Court concluded that the discrepancies highlighted by the petitioner were not sufficient grounds to invoke its inherent jurisdiction to quash the entire proceedings. Consequently, the Court dismissed the criminal petition, leaving the parties to agitate their respective factual claims before the Principal Judge, Family Court, where the maintenance petition is currently pending.

Date of Decision: 21 August 2026