As per case facts, the Petitioner/wife challenged an appellate court's order that dismissed her DV Act application (filed under Section 12) for lack of territorial jurisdiction, stating she resided elsewhere. ... She argued she resided in Kolkata and faced continuous economic abuse, making the Kolkata court's jurisdiction valid. The question arose whether a Section 482 Cr.P.C. application is maintainable against such an appellate order and if the Kolkata court had territorial jurisdiction under Section 27 of the DV Act, considering her claimed temporary residence and continuous cause of action. Finally, the court ruled that the Section 482 application is maintainable and that the Kolkata court had jurisdiction due to the Petitioner's temporary residence and the continuous nature of economic abuse, setting aside the appellate court's order as perverse.