Court 28 W. P. 9914 (W) of 2017
In the matter of : Smt. Indrani Sarkar
Mr. S. S. Mondal,
Mr. Soumajit Chatterjee …for the Petitioner.
Mrs. Chama Mukherjee,
Mr. Sandipan Pal …for the State.
Mr. Debabrata Chakraborty,
Mr. Debnarayan Patra,
Mr. Debasish Kundu …for the Prvt Resp. No.5.
It is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that she is
the brother of one Santanu Ghosh who is the spouse of
private respondent no.5, Smt. Monima Ghosh.
It is the contention of the petitioner that her brother
Santanu Ghosh had suffered a brain stroke in 2005 and
is presently suffering from various ailments which has
had severe impact as to his mobility and other
It is the concern of the petitioner that private
respondent no.5 has failed and/or neglected to extend
proper and adequate medical facilities to the said
Santanu Ghosh and consequentially there is every
chance of loss of life.
It is, therefore, prayed that the custody of her
brother be handed over to the petitioner for better
medical treatment and/or management.
Learned lawyer appearing for the private respondent
no.5, however, submits that the instant writ petition
has been filed as a counterblast to a criminal case
registered against the petitioner by her under Section
498A of the Indian Penal Code where she has been
alleged of perpetrating cruelty on the said private
This, however, is hotly disputed by the learned
lawyer appearing for the petitioner who submits that
the allegations of cruelty are out and out false and that
the instant writ petition is filed in order to ensure the
basic human rights and medical attention of her
brother is preserved.
Learned lawyer appearing for the State-respondents
submits report wherefrom it appears that on the
complaint of the petitioner criminal proceeding being
Baruipur P.S. Case No. 641 dated 10.3.2017 under
Sections 341/325 of the Indian Penal Code has been
registered against private respondent no.5.
The report is taken on record. Copy of the said
report be handed over to the learned lawyer appearing
for the petitioner as well as private respondent no.5.
In view of the aforesaid facts, I find that the brother
of the petitioner is sui juris and, therefore, prayer of the
petitioner for taking custody of her brother is not
maintainable in law. However, the concern of the
petitioner as to the health and wellbeing of her brother
is all but natural. It appears from the annexures to the
writ petition that medical treatment is being advanced
to the brother of the petitioner. That apart, learned
lawyer appearing for the private respondent no.5
submits that all possible medical treatment has been
extended to her husband.
Accordingly, I dispose of the writ petition directing
the private respondent no.5 to render necessary medical
care and assistance to her husband Mr. Santanu Ghosh
in order to ensure his good health and peaceful living.
Criminal case registered against the private
respondent no.5 shall, however, continue in accordance
with law and be taken to its logical conclusion. Private
respondent no.5 shall be at liberty to raise all her just
defences in the said criminal proceeding in accordance
With the aforesaid observations, the petition is
Since no affidavit has been called for, none of the
allegations shall be deemed to have been admitted by
Urgent Photostat Certified copy of this order, if
applied for, be supplied expeditiously after complying
with all necessary legal formalities.
(Joymalya Bagchi, J.)