SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Judgments of Supreme Court of India and High Courts

Bimalendu Chatterjee & Anr vs The State Of West Bengal & Ors on 26 February, 2019


Sl. No.97.
W.P. 22882 (W) of 2018

Bimalendu Chatterjee Anr.
The State of West Bengal Ors.

Mr. Sourabh Sengupta
….For the petitioners.

Mr. Jyoti Prakash Chatterjee
Mr. Abdus Salam
….For the State.

Mr. Bidyut Kumar Banerjee
Mr. Chirantan Dan
…For the Respondent No. 4.

Ms. S. Haque
…For the Respondent No. 5.

The petitioners seek implementation of an order passed by

the Appellate Tribunal exercising jurisdiction under the

Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007.

By the impugned order, the Appellate Tribunal directed

that, the daughter‐in‐law of the petitioners should vacate the

residence of the petitioners.

State and the private respondents are represented.

The facts are startling. The daughter‐in‐law instituted a

proceeding inter alia under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code

against the petitioners and her husband first in point of time. The

investigation with regard thereto stands concluded. Charge sheets

have been filed. The petitioners are on bail. Subsequent thereto,

the petitioners have applied under the Act of 2007. Significantly,

the proceedings under the Act of 2007 culminated into an order of

dismissal passed by the Sub‐Divisional Magistrate. Appeal was

carried by the petitioners. The Appellate Authority reversed the

findings of the Sub‐Divisional Magistrate and directed the

daughter‐in‐law to vacate the house undertaken.

The daughter‐in‐law of the petitioners instituted a

proceeding under the Protection of Women from Domestic

Violence Act, 2005. The Court is informed that, such proceedings

are pending. The Court is also informed that the daughter‐in‐law

receives as alimony of Rs.8,000/‐ per month. The proceedings

under the Act of 2005 is yet to attain finality. The daughter‐in‐law

is entitled to reside at her matrimonial house. As noted above, in

the facts of the present case, the proceeding under Section 498A

was first in point of time. In order to defeat the claim of the

daughter‐in‐law in such proceeding as also to prejudice the

proceeding under the Act of 2005, the proceeding of the Act of

2007 instituted. The petitioners approach under the Act of 2007 is

actuated by mala fides and is designed to deny a daughter‐in‐law

her rightful residence at her matrimonial place. Admittedly, at the

time of her marriage, one of the matrimonial residence was the

resident of the petitioners. The petitioners claim that, the

residence is a self acquired property. It is a two‐storied building

with the first floor being let out to tenants. The first floor is

occupied by the petitioners.

Since the daughter‐in‐law is entitled to and is willing to

reside at her matrimonial house, it would be appropriate to direct

the police authorities to ensure that, the daughter‐in‐law is in a

position to utilize one of the bed rooms of such premises of her

choice along with all attending facilities of such room at such

premises forthwith. The concerned Officer‐in‐Charge of the Police

Station will act on the basis of this order and the daughter in law

in actual physical possession thereof. He will make an inventory

of the moveable available in such room. The Officer‐in‐Charge of

the concerned Police Station will make an inventory of the tenants

of the premises. He will inform such tenants that they will pay the

rent in respect of their tenancy to the daughter‐in‐law

commencing from the month of March 2019. Payment of rent to

the daughter‐in‐law will be in complete discharge of the liability

of the tenants to pay rent to the landlord. This mechanism is put

in place in order to provide adequate financial assistance to the

lady who is now being sought to be penalized by the son of the

petitioners in collusion with the petitioners. The police will treat

this writ petition as another incident of torture on the daughter‐in‐

law and if necessary will undertake further investigation. If

necessary, the police are at liberty to apply for cancellation of bail,

if they are of the view that custodial interrogation is required. The

impugned order of the Tribunal cannot be sustained for less

implemented. It emanated out a proceeding which is mala fide,

instituted with an oblique motive and designed to defeat the due

process of law. The petitioners are acting in tandem with their son

to deny the rightful entitlements of the daughter in law. Such

actions of the petitioners must be visited with consequences in

order to uphold the rule of law.

W.P. 22882 (W) of 2018 is disposed of without any order as

to costs.


Urgent photostat certified copies of this order, if applied

for, be made available to the parties upon compliance of the


(Debangsu Basak, J.)

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Copyright © 2020 SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Free Legal Help, Just WhatsApp Away

MyNation HELP line

We are Not Lawyers, but No Lawyer will give you Advice like We do

Please read Group Rules – CLICK HERE, If You agree then Please Register CLICK HERE and after registration  JOIN WELCOME GROUP HERE

We handle Women Centric biased laws like False Sectioin 498A IPC, Domestic Violence(DV ACT), Divorce, Maintenance, Alimony, Child Custody, HMA 24, 125 CrPc, 307, 312, 313, 323, 354, 376, 377, 406, 420, 497, 506, 509; TEP, RTI and many more…

MyNation FoundationMyNation FoundationMyNation Foundation