Mukti Ghoshal Vs State of West Bengal and Ors. — Domestic Violence | Calcutta HC (2025)

Mukti Ghoshal Vs State of West Bengal and Ors. — Domestic Violence | Calcutta HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Appeal MAT 806 of 2023 alongwith the connected application CAN 1 of 2023 disposed of; the custody/re-entry observations in the impugned order declared redundant; future disputes among the parties to be handled by the concerned police authorities upon hearing all parties; no order as to costs.

Issue for consideration

Whether the observations in the impugned single-Judge order - that in the event of any further complaint by Sandhya the Uttarpara Police may take the appellant and her husband into custody and that they shall thereafter not be allowed to enter into their house - ought to be expunged/treated as redundant in view of the resolution of the dispute between the parties.

Court's answer

Considering that the dispute between the appellant, her husband and Sandhya has been resolved and that they have undertaken henceforth to peacefully reside in the same house, the observations made in the impugned order - that in the event of any further complaint by Sandhya the police authorities may take the appellant and her husband in custody and that thereafter they shall not be allowed to enter into their house - have become redundant.

Ratio / Principle

In view of the redundancy of those observations, nothing remained to be decided in the present appeal, and the appeal alongwith the connected application (CAN 1 of 2023) was disposed of.

Key takeaways

Cautionary observation: in the event any dispute arises amongst the parties in future, appropriate steps would be taken by the concerned police authorities upon hearing all the parties.obiter¶20

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Appeal (MAT 806 of 2023 with CAN 1 of 2023; decision 19.05.2025) by Mukti Ghoshal against the order dated 12th April, 2023 of the learned single Judge in WPA 4807 of 2023, a writ petition by Sandhya Ghosal (the appellant's mother-in-law) alleging forcible ouster from her residential property. That order had directed Uttarpara Police Station to escort Sandhya back into her house, sternly warned the appellant and her husband (respondent no. 6) against causing harm to Sandhya, and observed that on any further complaint the police might take the couple into custody and not allow them to re-enter their house. Counsel for the appellant sought expunction of those observations, noting (without contradiction as to the underlying fact) an interim order under the Prevention of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 enjoyed by the appellant which had not been disclosed below. The dispute being resolved - the parties now co-residing in the same house in separate rooms and having undertaken before the police to live peacefully - the two-judge bench (Tapabrata Chakraborty and Reetobroto Kumar Mitra, JJ., per the unsigned joint order) held the custody/re-entry observations redundant, disposed of the appeal with the connected application, observed that any future dispute would be addressed by the concerned police upon hearing all parties, and made no order as to costs.

19.05.2025

rpan/ 01

MAT 806 of 2023 + IA No.: CAN 1 of 2023

Mukti Ghoshal

– Versus –

The State of West Bengal & Others

Mr. S. N. Arefin, Mr. Partha Chakraborty … for the Appellant. Mr. Amal Kr. Sen, Mr. Jaladhi Das

… for the State/Respondents. Mr. Parashar Baidya. Mr. Saikat Mondal, Mr. Debdutta Karmakar, Ms. Shree Mukherjee

… for the Private Respondent no. 7.

The present appeal has been preferred challenging an order dated 12^th April, 2023 passed by the learned single Judge in the writ petition, being WPA 4807 of 2023.

It appears that the writ petition was preferred by one Sandhya Ghosal (in short, Sandhya), the mother-in-law of the present appellant alleging that she had been forcibly ousted from her residential property. By the impugned order, the learned single Judge directed that Uttarpara Police Station shall escort Sandhya back into her house and that the appellant and her husband being the respondent no.6 shall be sternly and stringently warned by the police against causing any harm to Sandhya. It was also observed that in the event any further complaint is lodged by Sandhya, the police authorities may take the

2

appellant and her husband in custody and thereafter, they shall not be allowed to enter into their house.

Mr. Arefin, learned advocate appearing for the appellant submits that the dispute between the parties has been resolved and he prays for expunction of the observations to the effect that Uttarpara Police Station may take the appellant and her husband in custody and that they shall not be allowed to enter into the house thereafter.

He further submits that it was not disclosed before the learned single Judge that the appellant was enjoying an interim order passed by the competent forum under the Prevention of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (in short, the said Act).

Mr. Baidya, learned advocate appearing for Sandhya being the respondent no.7 herein does not dispute the fact that presently the appellant, her husband and Sandhya are residing together in the same house in separate rooms. He, however, disputes the contention of Mr. Arefin that the interim order obtained in the application under the said Act by the appellant is subsisting as on date.

Mr. Sen, learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the State/respondents submits that necessary enquiry was conducted and the appellant as well as the respondent nos.6 and 7 appeared before the police authorities and undertook that henceforth they would be peacefully residing in the same house.

3

Having heard the learned advocates and considering the fact that the dispute between the appellant, her husband and Sandhya has been resolved and as they have undertaken that henceforth they would be peacefully residing in the same house, we are of the opinion that the observations made in the impugned order that in the event any further complaint is lodged by Sandhya, the police authorities may take the appellant and her husband in custody and that thereafter they shall not be allowed to enter into their house, have become redundant. In view thereof, nothing remains to be decided in the present appeal and the same alongwith the connected application is disposed of.

Needless to observe in the event of any dispute arises amongst the parties in future, appropriate steps would be taken by the concerned police authorities upon hearing all the parties.

There shall, however, be no order as to costs.

Urgent photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be supplied to the parties, upon compliance of all requisite formalities.

(Reetobroto Kumar Mitra, J.) (Tapabrata Chakraborty, J.)