GUWAHATI, India, Feb. 25 -- Gauhati High Court issued the following order on Jan. 27:

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.

*Rest of the document can be viewed at: (https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/ecourtindiaHC/cases/display_pdf.php?filename=A9S7c5LDIsB6RXaCf816x%2BbGPZavBf8Mgh25tCVVDXXL5woQAvczP5I24zvlkjy8&caseno=Crl.Pet./525/2025&cCode=1&cino=GAHC010093302025&state_code=6&appFlag=)

Disclaimer: Curated by HT Syndication.