C.R.R. 3542 of 2019
Sri Pratul Chandra Ghosh Ors.
The State of West Bengal Anr.
Mr. Dipanjan Chatterjee
….. For the Petitioners
Mr. Sudip Ghosh Chowdhury
…..For the Opposite Party No.2
In this revisional application the petitioner nos.1 to 3 being the husband,
father‐in‐law and mother‐in‐law of the opposite party no.2 have challenged the
proceeding being, M.C. No.115 of 2018 (T.R. 205 of 2018) under Sections 17/ 18/
22 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, pending in
the Court of the learned Judicial Magistrate, 5th Court, Chinsurah, Hooghly,
inter alia, on the ground that there is no domestic relationship between the
petitioners and the opposite party no.2 which came to an end before filing of the
application under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic
Violence Act, 2005. So, there cannot be any apprehension in the mind of the
opposite party no.2 that she may be subjected to domestic violence by the
petitioners and, as such, without any subsisting domestic relationship, the
question of any apprehension would not arise. The opposite party no.2 has
filed application under Section 12 of the Act of 2005, inter alia, praying for an
order of residence in the shared household which does not belong to her
husband‐petitioner no.1 rather the household property belongs to petitioner
nos.2 and 3 the parents‐in‐law of the opposite party no.2. Thus, it is contended
that the opposite party no.2 is not entitled to claim any order of residence in
such household which is not her husband’s property, and as such, an order of
alternative accommodation is not enforceable against the opposite party nos.2
Mr. Dipanjan Chatterjee, learned advocate appearing for the petitioners
urged for quashing the proceeding qua the petitioner nos.2 and 3 and relied on
a decision in the case of S. R. Batra Anr. V. Taruna Batra reported in AIR
2007 SC 1118 wherein it has been held that there is no law in India like in the
British Matrimonial Homes Act, 1967 and in any case the rights which may be
available under any law can only be as against the husband and not against the
father‐in‐law or mother‐in‐law. On the contrary, Mr. Sudip Ghosh Chowdhury
learned advocate appearing for the opposite party no.2 submits that the
opposite party nos.2 and 3 have not even entered appearance before the learned
Magistrate. The order‐sheet in the referred case reveals that application filed on
behalf of the opposite party no.2 was fixed for hearing of interim petition on
04.12.2019 and the petitioners instead of entering appearance before the
Magistrate have preferred this revisional application challenging the
Now, Mr. Chowdhury informs this Court that the case is fixed on 27th
January, 2020 for hearing of the interim application under Section 23 of the D. V.
Act wherein the opposite party‐wife has prayed for an order of protection of the
right to residence in the shared household and restraining the opposite parties,
the present petitioners from evicting the petitioners from shared household
under Section 17 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005.
In this context, it is submitted on behalf of the petitioners that since, the
present opposite party no.2 is putting in her parental home question of such an
order of injunction restraining the opposite parties from evicting the petitioner
does not arise. As regards the Prayer – (b) for interim order under Section 18 of
the said Act, the prohibition has been prayed against the present petitioners
from committing any act of domestic violence upon the opposite party no.2.
This is also not maintainable as against the petitioner nos. 2 and 3 as per
submission of learned advocate for the petitioners that since, the opposite party
no.2 is not putting up in the shared household belongings to the petitioner nos.2
and 3, one cannot think of any domestic violence. As regards Prayer – (c)
protection order under Section 22 of the Act has been made for a direction upon
the present petitioners to pay the compensation and damages for mental agony
and emotional distress suffered by the present opposite party no.2 due to
physical and mental torture by the petitioners.
In this context, it appears from the record that the opposite party no.2 has
filed an F.I.R. under Section 498A against the opposite parties alleging mental
and physical cruelty meted out. At the same time, it is made to understand on
behalf of the petitioners that the petitioner no.1 was asked to pay a sum of Rs.25
laks to the opposite party no.2 and to sign a petition of mutual divorce. But,
there is no copy of petition of mutual divorce as alleged by the petitioners. I am
of the opinion that all the factual aspects addressed to this Court can be decided
by the Trial Court on evidence. This Court finds that proceeding before the
Magistrate is at the initial stage . It is true that the protection for residence
cannot be asked for against the father‐in‐law and the mother‐in‐law as per the
dictate of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the above cited decision but the fact
remains that the household property really belongs to the petitioner nos.2 and 3
is not in proof before this Court.
I make it clear that, the wife can seek such protection against her husband.
In the context of the above, discussion and considering that the proceeding is at
the initial stage, this Court is not inclined to quash the proceeding against the
petitioners or even against the opposite party nos. 2 and 3. They are at liberty to
address the Judicial Magistrate before whom the Miscellaneous Case is pending
keeping all the points open for decision by the learned Magistrate.
Accordingly, this revisional application being, C.R.R. 3542 of 2019 is
Urgent photostat certified copies of this order, if applied for, be made
available to the parties upon compliance of the requisite formalities.
(Shivakant Prasad, J.)