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
Urgent photostat certified copies of this order, if applied
for, be made available to the parties upon compliance of the
(Debangsu Basak, J.)