Before any Magistrate examines income affidavits or fixes a monthly figure, a quieter question decides the shape of maintenance litigation: where can the case be filed at all? Section 145 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 — the successor to Section 126 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — answers it with an unusually generous menu of venues, designed so that a dependent spouse, child or parent is not forced to litigate in the respondent's home district. This explainer maps the venue options, the procedure that follows, and how the BNSS rules interact with the DV Act and Family Court jurisdictions in Delhi.
The venue menu under Section 145(1)
Section 145(1) BNSS provides that proceedings under Section 144 may be taken against any person in any district — where he is; where he or his wife resides; or where he last resided with his wife, or as the case may be, with the mother of the illegitimate child. Four distinct anchors, any one of which suffices.
Where he is
The respondent's current location — useful where he has moved for work and has no fixed residence.
Where he resides
The respondent's district of residence — the conventional defendant-side venue.
Where the wife resides
The claimant-friendly anchor: the wife may sue from the district where she now lives, including her parental home.
Last matrimonial residence
The district where the couple last resided together — often the matrimonial home the wife has left.
The claimant-residence venue — introduced into the CrPC scheme precisely to spare deserted wives the burden of litigating in distant districts — is the one most Delhi petitions rest on. A wife who has returned to her parents in Delhi after a marriage in another State may file in Delhi; the respondent's objection that "everything happened elsewhere" is irrelevant to venue under this head. For claims by parents against children under Section 144, the same clause structure applies with the parties' residences supplying the anchors.
Procedure once venue is fixed
Section 145(2) sets the courtroom texture. All evidence is taken in the presence of the person against whom maintenance is to be ordered — or his advocate, where personal attendance is dispensed with — and is recorded in the manner prescribed for summons-cases. The proceeding therefore moves faster than a trial: no charge, no elaborate stages, affidavit-led income disclosure in Delhi practice, and focused evidence on marriage or relationship, neglect or refusal, need and means. The proviso to Section 145(2) arms the Magistrate against the most common respondent tactic — disappearance. Wilful avoidance of service or wilful neglect to attend permits ex parte determination; the safety valve is an application to set aside the ex parte order within three months of its date, for good cause, on such terms as to costs as the Magistrate thinks fit. Section 145(3) adds a costs power for the proceeding itself.
1. Petition filed
In any Section 145(1) district — with the marriage or relationship, neglect and means pleaded, and interim maintenance sought under Section 144.
2. Notice and affidavits
Service on the respondent; sworn affidavits of assets, liabilities, income and expenditure exchanged by both sides.
3. Interim order
Interim maintenance fixed; the statute intends disposal of the interim application within sixty days from service.
4. Evidence and final order
Summons-case style evidence; final monthly maintenance from the date of application or order as the court directs; enforcement under Section 144(3).
Choosing among available venues
Where more than one district qualifies, the choice is strategic. Filing where the claimant resides minimises her cost and travel — decisive where the respondent's tactic is attrition. Filing where the respondent resides can speed service and enforcement, since warrants and recovery under Section 144(3) execute most easily where he and his employer or assets are. Filing at the last shared residence suits cases where the documentary record — house, neighbours, local police complaints — sits there. Counsel should also think one step ahead to enforcement: an order from a Delhi court against a respondent employed in Delhi supports salary-attachment requests and warrant execution without letters rogatory between districts.
Transfer remains the pressure-valve. A respondent genuinely prejudiced by venue may seek transfer — within Delhi through the Sessions machinery, or interstate through the Supreme Court under the transfer provisions of the BNSS — but transfers of maintenance cases away from a dependent wife's district are granted sparingly, and courts increasingly prefer directing video-conference appearances over uprooting the weaker party.
The chamber of Advocate Manish Jha advises and appears in maintenance and matrimonial proceedings before the Mahila Courts, Family Courts and District Courts of Delhi and the High Court of Delhi. This article is for general information; it is not legal advice and does not create an advocate-client relationship.
Frequently Asked Questions
Can a wife file where she is living now, even after leaving the matrimonial home?
Yes. Section 145(1) BNSS permits proceedings against any person in any district where he or his wife resides, where he is, or where he last resided with his wife or with the mother of the illegitimate child. The wife's current place of residence is itself a valid venue — she is not required to return to the husband's district to litigate.
Is the maintenance case heard like a criminal trial?
No. Section 145(2) provides that evidence is taken in the presence of the respondent, or of his advocate where personal attendance is dispensed with, and recorded in the manner prescribed for summons-cases. The proceeding is civil in nature though housed in the criminal procedure code, and its object is the prevention of destitution, not punishment.
What if the respondent simply refuses to appear?
Section 145(2) contains a proviso: if the Magistrate is satisfied that the respondent is wilfully avoiding service or wilfully neglecting to attend, the case may be heard and determined ex parte. An ex parte order may be set aside for good cause shown on application within three months, subject to terms including costs.
Do the same venue rules govern DV Act and Family Court cases?
No — each statute has its own rule. Section 27 of the DV Act allows filing where the aggrieved person permanently or temporarily resides or carries on business or is employed, where the respondent does so, or where the cause of action arose. Matrimonial petitions follow Section 19 of the Hindu Marriage Act or the corresponding provision of the applicable marriage statute. The overlaps usually let a Delhi-resident claimant anchor all proceedings in Delhi.